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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to U.S. Senators

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your support.

Letter to U.S. Representative

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

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

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

Thank you for your support.

Thank you for Sens. Booker and Warnock

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

The report recommends a series of actions, including:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global leaders must have a full understanding of the cause of pesticide-induced diseases before the chemicals enter the environment. Policy reform and the adoption of practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use can end the uncertainty surround harm. With far too many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, reducing pesticide use is a critically important aspect of safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities, particularly minority and underserved. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a great resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated cancer rates and other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on breast cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases.

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

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

Source: University of Michigan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: University of York, Molecular Biology and Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: University of Toronto, Scientific Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to U.S. Representative:

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Developing climate adaptation and mitigation strategies for biodiversity; 

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

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

*Rapidly building renewable energy capacity; 

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

*Advancing conservation in coordination with State and Tribal governments; 

*Incorporating indigenous knowledge; 

*Providing means to ensure equitable access to nature; and 

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human senses are integral to everyday human activities, and it is vital to understand how chronic pesticide exposure can limit the body’s ability to function normally. Advocates are calling for policies that enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. There are several limitations in defining real-world poisoning as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). The adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for more extensive research on occupational and nonoccupational pesticide exposure, especially in agriculture. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticides, see PIDD pages on the brain and nervous system disorders, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Furthermore, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parkinson’s Disease article from the Spring 2008 issue of Pesticides and You.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Guardian

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

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

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

Carbon trading schemes won’t work because:

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

In addition,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to Congress

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

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

Carbon trading schemes are flawed because they:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 12, 2021) Being many decades down the path of chemical-intensive agriculture, growers and other land managers (and all the industries that influence them) have come largely to ignore the efficacy of healthy, functioning natural systems to maintain ecological equilibrium, i.e., not letting any one pest or disease proliferate. Recent research points to an example of such ecosystem efficacy. The study, by researchers in California and China, sought to evaluate whether increased population densities of fungi might be suppressing nematode populations in California production fields frequently planted with the cole crops (such as brussels sprouts and broccoli) they favor. The research finds that a diverse population of fungi in soils is highly likely to be effectively killing nematodes that threaten such crops. This is not the first time Beyond Pesticides has covered the potential of fungi as an effective control for agricultural pests.

Thirty years ago, these nematodes were dealt with by application of soil fumigants and nematicides, because at sufficient population levels, the nematodes can destroy cole crops. During the following three decades, state-mandated monitoring showed that use of those chemical controls was diminishing and, by 2014, had been eliminated — even as yields rose. The co-authors point out that it is California’s relatively robust pesticide-use reporting program that surfaced information on the amounts of fumigants and nematicides used to control cyst nematodes since the early 1990s. The plummeting use of these compounds during that period suggested to the scientists a decline in nematode disease pressure, and prompted them to investigate why this unusual trajectory was happening.

The study evaluated nematode populations in 152 crop fields in 2016, finding that 62% of the soils harbored no detectable cyst nematodes, and only a few samples reached populations sufficient to cause any crop damage. The researchers used cyst nematodes as bait, and determined that broadly present hyperparasitic fungi were likely biologically suppressing the nematodes below a damaging level.

University of California-Riverside Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology scientist and study co-author James Borneman, PhD commented, “The results from our baiting analysis combined with advanced molecular tools gave us a detailed depiction of the possible nematode-parasitizing fungi in these soils, which then provided a plausible explanation for this dramatic decrease in pesticide use.”

The widespread availability of toxic pesticides makes possible the prevailing, chemical-intensive land management systems whose effects are broad and complex. Conventional agriculture spends copious time and billions of dollars ($9B in 2012, e.g.) on pesticide products, and countless more on labor to apply toxic chemical compounds to kill pests and “contain” diseases. These research results demonstrate how faulty the use of fungicides — which in 2012 amounted to 105 million pounds in the U.S — is likely to be. These compounds destroy fungi that provide a variety of beneficial and economically valuable ecosystem (and crop) services. Fungi decompose and recycle nutrients, improve moisture retention, and even act as biological controls for some fungal diseases. Many other pesticides, including glyphosate (which is an antibiotic) threaten microbial life, as well.

As Beyond Pesticides has written, “Microbial communities in the soil (and in other ecosystems) contribute to plant growth and health. In soils, those communities include bacteria, fungi, earthworms, and other invertebrates that break down organic matter and make nutrients available to plants. Bacteria and fungi engage in reciprocal exchanges of nutrients with plants, providing soluble forms of plant nutrients.”

The subject research emphasizes the errant nature of chemically killing these organisms, and underscores a larger point: chemical-intensive farming and land management destroy these essential communities that, instead, could actually support and benefit growers. Organic farmers, landscapers, gardeners, and others responsible for managing land and landscapes, by contrast, feed soils and create favorable environments for the soil biota that make nutrients available to plants (primarily through decomposition), help suppress overpopulation, and provide other services.

Conventional agriculture has, for decades, treated soil as little more than an “empty matrix” into which inputs can be poured, and crops derived as “outputs.” Thus, growers will use, for example, soil fumigants — highly toxic gases injected or dripped into the soil to sterilize it. (These chemicals literally “empty” the soil of biotic communities.) Genetically engineered, or other, seeds are then planted; synthetic, petrochemical fertilizers are added to the soil; and soil, seeds, and plants are doused in pesticides and herbicides. From this, food is grown, harvested, and consumed. Something is very wrong with this approach.

Beyond Pesticides maintains that the solution to agricultural pest and weed problems is not the approach just described, which leads to an endless series of searches for the next chemical knock-down, which leads to resistance and the subsequent search for another pesticide, and another, and another. The solution is a system that takes land management out of this entropic pattern, which is the antithesis of regenerative, organic approaches that mimic and cooperate with natural systems, in which all parts must function well together for optimal results. In such systems, soil is respected and treated as a living ecosystem of components that, together, support and enhance biological life. A transition to such an approach is desperately needed.

The near-global dominance of chemical-intensive agriculture has had many impacts, not least of which is that food producers are, and/or feel, “locked in” economically to chemical management of pests and diseases. The science, public health, and advocacy communities are, more and more, teaching and persuading growers, landscape managers, legislators and policy makers, and the public — not only about the crisis of toxic pesticides (which impact human and ecosystem health, the food system, farmworker well-being, and biodiversity), but also, about the economics of organic, nontoxic approaches. Beyond understanding the threats of pesticides, some stakeholders are advocating for a revisioning of agriculture that embraces systems that cooperate with and support healthy, natural ecosystems and the services of which they are capable.

To go “meta” for just a moment: in 2014 Fred Kirschenmann, PhD, delivered a talk to Beyond Pesticides’ 32nd National Pesticide Forum. His remarks were excerpted in a Pesticides and You article, and this excerpt is worth revisiting: [Our current predicament] is “built on a prior notion coming out of the [E]nlightenment when we began to see ourselves as somehow being separate from nature — that we had not only a right, but a responsibility, as René Descartes put it, to become the masters and possessors of nature. We began to see ourselves as being somehow separate, not a part of what Aldo Leopold referred to as the ‘land community’ or the ‘biotic community.’ Our responsibility was to dominate it. [B]eing that we saw ourselves as separate from nature, we somehow saw ourselves as being sort of isolated. Therefore, what we did and also our conscience was oriented to our fellow humans. We take care of or care for them, to the extent that some of us want to do that for fellow humans, but that doesn’t extend to the rest of the biotic community because the humans are somehow special. . . . Aldo Leopold said one of the most important statements on ecological conscience: ‘A land ethic, then, reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land. Health is the capacity of the land for self-renewal.’”

Beyond Pesticides continues to work for the adoption of organic, regenerative agricultural and land management systems, which represent the safe and sane way forward out of the toxic quagmire in which farmers, landscapers, and others now operate. Please learn more and get engaged in this important effort. Beyond Pesticides stands ready to assist state and local efforts.

Source: https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PHYTOFR-07-20-0009-R and https://phys.org/news/2021-02-ultimately-beneficial-fungi-effective-pesticides.html

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

(Santa Fe, New Mexico, February 11, 2021)—New Mexico State Senator Brenda McKenna  introduced the Public Schools Pesticide Management Act (PSPMA) (SB 326) in order to protect school children from exposure to toxic pesticides where they learn and play. The legislation advances ecological pest management, an environmentally healthy way to protect children and the public from weeds and pests, within all schools, classrooms, community parks, and playgrounds in the state. Under PSPMA, only organic and minimum risk pesticides, the least toxic, yet still-effective products on the market will be allowed. Toxic pesticide use will be permitted only under a defined public health emergency, as determined by a public health official. The law does not address the use of pesticides in farming or agriculture. 

“All children in New Mexico have the right to a safe environment where they learn and play,” said State Senator Brenda McKenna. “This legislation embraces an environmentally healthy approach to pest management, so families do not have to worry about the use of toxic pesticides in schools and communities.”

Pesticide exposure presents unique dangers to children’s health. Children’s developing organ systems are less able to detoxify harmful chemicals, and they often come into closer contact with pesticides than adults in public spaces like parks and playgrounds. Peer-reviewed studies show pesticide exposure is linked to a wide range of childhood diseases.

“One of our main concerns in New Mexico is the widespread use of pesticide management which employs the use of glyphosate or roundup, now a proven carcinogen. It is used in products widely employed in public areas as well as acequias,” said Eleanor Bravo of the New Mexico state group Common Ground Rising. “Exposure of children to toxic pesticides has been linked to attention and learning problems as well as cancer.”

“There is no national systematic reporting on the use of pesticides by consumers or licensed professionals,” Eleanor Bravo notes. “The New Mexico Pesticide Control Act was written in the ’50s and does not come close to managing the host of substances that are now employed.  Our duty to our children must be paramount in our efforts to give them the best possible environment in which to grow.  New Mexico is last in the country for child welfare.  Let’s prioritize our children’s well-being by passing this important groundbreaking legislation.”

“There have been many peer reviewed studies that show endocrine disruption from pesticides,” said Elaine Cimino of Common Ground Rising. “We are seeing how this impacts children’s hormonal growth. It is extremely important we provide healthy and safe environments for our children.”

“As the Mother of four school age children, I fully support switching to safer, non-toxic pest management, so our children have safe places to learn and play, said Anni Elwell Hanna, of New Mexico Climate Justice. “This would be a win for children, families and our communities.” 

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency encourages states to implement safer pest management practices at schools, it is not mandatory, and New Mexico’s current laws do little to stop children’s exposure to toxic pesticides. The ecological pest management approach outlined within the PSPMA will effectively and economically replace the use of toxic pesticides with natural and sustainable pest management practices.

“New Mexico is way past due in its efforts to protect our children from toxic chemicals,” said Mary Ellen Capek of Philanthropy Research and Consulting. “PSPMA will not only help us catch up with other states, this law will position NM as a national leader in efforts to prevent toxic chemicals from affecting children’s growth and development. We have more than enough scientific data that document  the damage these pesticides cause, and with the cooperation of the Department of Education, NM school districts will be able to create a wide reaching, comprehensive program that showcases the latest in nontoxic pesticide management and keeps our children healthy.”

“As the science on the dangers pesticides pose to children continues to accumulate, experience from states and communities across the country is showing that these chemicals are not necessary to maintain pest-free schools and playable turf fields in a cost-effective way,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at the national nonprofit Beyond Pesticides. “We thank Senator McKenna for introducing this important bill and urge passage by the state legislature.”

Senate Bill 326, the Public Schools Pesticide Management Act, will be heard before the following Committees: Senate Education, Senate Conservation and Senate Finance.

###

TAKE ACTION: If you are resident of New Mexico, tell your elected state senator and representative to support pesticide protections where children learn and play…AND share our infographic on the Public Schools Pesticide Management Act with your social networks to generate even more support!

(Beyond Pesticides, February 11, 2021) California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) are experiencing high rates of urogenital carcinoma (UGC) cancer incidences from the combined effect of toxic “legacy” pesticides like DDT and the viral infection Otarine herpesvirus-1 (OtHV1), according to a new study published in Frontiers in Marine Science. Previous research documents the role herpesvirus infection, genotype, and organochlorine pesticides play in sea lion cancer development. However, synergism (collaboration) between viral infection and toxic chemical exposure increases cancer development odds.

Pollution of the oceans with toxic chemicals lacks adequate regulation, is widespread and only getting worse. More than 80 percent of ocean pollution comes from land-based, anthropological activities. A recent study published in Annals of Public Health finds toxic chemicals from pesticides, heavy metals, plastics, and other sources readily contaminate the ocean, especially near coastal regions where chemical inputs occur in higher concentrations.

Globally, pollution has major disease implications, causing the deaths of over nine million people annually. Therefore, it is essential to understand the co-effects of ocean pollution and diseases to protect human health. Authors of the study state, “This study has implications for human health, as virally associated cancer occurs in humans, and likelihood of cancer development could similarly be increased by exposure to environmental contaminants. Efforts to prevent ecosystem contamination with persistent organic pollutants must be improved to protect both wildlife and human health.”

Scientists in this study assessed cancer incidences among 394 California sea lions for 20 years. Using a stepwise regression model, scientists find herpesvirus condition, exposure to contaminants, and blubber depth aid in UGC cancer development, but not the genotype. The risk of developing UGC is nearly 44 times higher in sea lions with herpesvirus infections. Furthermore, UGC risk increases 1.48-fold per every unit of contaminant concentration within blubber.

The oceans are essential to human health and well-being, feeding billions, supporting millions of jobs, and support medicinal materials. However, environmental contaminants like pesticides have on profound impact on the ecosystem. Pesticides expose terrestrial and marine organisms to toxic compounds known to have harmful biological consequences. A 2014 study finds a 45 percent decline in invertebrate species and a steep decline in various marine bird species from water contamination. 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 (i.e., insecticides to control sea lice in farmed salmon) results in coastal habitat loss and genetic and health risks to wild marine populations. Marine species biodiversity is already 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.

Like marine invertebrates and birds, many marine mammals demonstrate signs of chemical poisonings, especially from persistent organic pollutants (POPs) like DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Studies find dolphins can harbor high concentrations of organochlorine compounds in their brain tissue. However, POPs are not the only chemicals that contaminate marine mammal species. A recent study finds bottlenose dolphins and pygmy sperm whales along the eastern seaboard contain high levels of triclosan, BPA, and low levels of atrazine. All three chemicals display endocrine (hormonal) disrupting properties in a range of animals, including mammals, even at infinitesimally low levels. A 2018 study finds detectable levels of toxic industrial byproducts like “inert” ingredients from pesticide products in bottlenose dolphins inhabiting the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, there is growing concern over organophosphorus compounds in flame retardants and pesticides. According to a 2018 study, marine mammals may lack the functioning of a gene that helps terrestrial animals break down certain toxic chemicals. Therefore, manatees, dolphins, and other mammals may display heightened sensitivity to pesticides, particularly neurotoxic organophosphates.

This California-based study finds cancer incidents among sea lions are the highest of all mammals, including humans, with UGC emerging in 18 to 23 percent of California sea lions. Cancer is rare in wild animals. Therefore, it is essential to recognize the drivers of disease progression and fruition. California sea lions inhabit coastal areas prone to more frequent pollution inputs. The Los Angeles coast was a dumping ground for persistent chemicals like DDT, boasting an astounding half a million barrels of DDT waste on the ocean floor. Although officials designated coastal Superfund sites—a federally designated area of hazardous waste—for DDT dumping, some DDT waste disposers took shortcuts by unloading barrels near the coast or puncturing floating barrels. DDT is a stable chemical, taking generations to breakdown, and readily bioaccumulating in sediment and marine organism tissues. Many scientists blame the leaking of DDT into the surrounding waters on the increase in mysterious diseases among marine species. Since humans and sea lions live in similar habitats, using the same contaminated waters for swimming and acquiring food, the prevalence of cancer has implications for human health.

The impact of chemical contamination on sea lion health, notably in conjunction with disease susceptibility, highlights the need to identify ocean pollution sources to establish regulations that mitigate adverse effects. Although now-banned DDT is an ever-persistent ocean pollution issue, other forms of ocean pollution are not as stark as direct chemical contamination. In the report, “Human Health and Ocean Pollution,” scientists find indirect chemical contamination from microplastics and runoff, in addition to the synergy among climate effects and ocean pollution, all threaten marine species’ health and ecosystem function. Microplastics can leach toxic additives into the water and absorb other toxins within the water, poisoning organisms that encounter these substances via ingestion or dermal absorption. Many of these additives have endocrine-disrupting impacts, causing reproductive and neurological dysfunction spanning generations. Pesticide runoff from agriculture or manufacturing plants—due to rain or improper wastewater disposal—can deplete global fish populations as chemicals bioaccumulate up the food chain. Furthermore, this nutrient-rich runoff can increase the frequency and severity of harmful algal blooms known to have neurotoxic effects on humans and animals. However, most concerning is the threat of antimicrobial resistance and bacterial pollution. Sea surface warming from global warming and pollution are beginning to trigger poleward migration of hazardous foodborne pathogens such as Vibrio vulnificus, responsible for 95 percent of seafood-related deaths in the United States.

According to the ocean pollution report, global chemical manufacturing is on the rise, and researchers expect manufacturing to double by 2045. However, health and environmental protections from chemical pollution and waste disposal are often insufficient, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where over 60 percent of modern chemical production resides. Since all oceans connect, and oceanic biogeochemical cycling allows substances to transverse ocean basins, these toxic chemicals will eventually spread throughout the marine environment.

Overall, authors of California sea lion study conclude, “Protecting the planet is a global concern and our collective responsibility. World leaders who recognize the gravity of ocean pollution, acknowledge its growing dangers, engage civil society, and take bold, evidence-based action to stop pollution at source will be essential for preventing ocean pollution and safeguarding our own health.”

Chemical contamination is ubiquitous in terrestrial and marine environments. Therefore, mammals and other animals 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. Furthermore, climate crisis implications like melting glaciers present a new concern over the high levels of chemical concentrations in the oceans from DDT, its metabolites, and other persistent organic pollutants, including PCBs and PBDEs trapped in ice. To protect the nation’s and world’s waterways and reduce the number of pesticides that make their way into drinking water, toxic pesticide use must end. Replacing pesticides with organic, non-toxic alternatives is crucial for safeguarding public health, particularly communities vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. Learn more about the hazards pesticides pose to wildlife and what you can do through Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife program page.

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

Source: The Conversation, Frontiers in Marine Science, Annals of Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2021) Pollinator advocates are petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list the American bumblebee (Bombus pensylvanicus) under the Endangered Species Act. The petitioners are the Bombus Pollinator Association of Law Students at Albany Law School and the Center for Biological Diversity. Like many other wild pollinators, the American bumblebee has undergone dramatic reductions in recent decades. According to petitioners, the last 20 years saw an 89% decline in the pollinator’s population.

Declines of the American bumblebee have occurred throughout its range, which encompasses 47 of the lower 48 states. However, there are also particularly hard hit regions. In New York, for instance, the pollinators have experienced a stunning 99% decline in relative abundance. Midwestern populations are also severely affected. Losses have followed in lock step with declines in the rusty patched bumblebee, which was listed as endangered in 2017. While the rusty patched has lost 90% of its midwestern range, the American bumblebee has experienced 83% declines. The petitioners note that the American bumblebee declined across a larger land area, and in several states where it was once the most populous pollinator.

The causes behind these catastrophic declines are familiar to many pollinator advocates. Pesticides, habitat loss, disease, climate change, and competition have all played a role. Most of these factors are human-driven, and can be addressed if given the opportunity.

Pesticides represent one of the lowest hanging fruit in any plan to restore native pollinator populations. Eliminating the use of toxic pesticides, particularly the neonicotinoid class of systemic insecticides, would address a ubiquitous source of exposure putting downward pressure on pollinator populations.  

Failure to address human-made factors impacting pollinators is likely to exacerbate these issues. “Pollinators such as the American bumblebee are essential if we intend to combat climate change successfully,” said Claire Burke, a student at Albany Law School. “Without Bombus pensylvanicus spanning 47 of the lower 48 states, vegetation at the heart of the food chain for animals and humans will be hard pressed to reproduce and survive.”

Pollinators are responsible for one in three bites of food, and pollination services are valued at over $125 billion globally. Within the United States, a 2014 Presidential Memorandum found that pollinators provide $24 billion annually to the US economy.  

“It’s unfortunate that we’re forced to call upon the Endangered Species Act to protect a species so fundamental to human and ecosystem health,” said Keith Hirokawa, a professor of law at Albany Law School. “It is our hope that the Biden administration grasps the gravity of this moment.”

After the Trump Administration delayed in listing the rusty patched bumblebee, failed to implement meaningful protections for monarch butterflies, and attacked foundational aspects of the Endangered Species Act, advocates are urging that the Biden administration will reverse course.

“There’s no question that human activities have pushed this bee toward extinction, so we have the ability to wake up, reverse course, and save it,” said Jess Tyler, a staff scientist at Center for Biological Diversity. “But this late in the game, it’s going to take the powerful tools provided only by the Endangered Species Act to get the job done. Anything short of that and we risk losing this iconic part of the American landscape forever.”

Take action today to urge the Biden administration to implement protections for another endangered pollinator, the monarch butterfly. And for more information on how you can work to protect pollinators in your region and community, see the BEE Protective webpage.

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, February 9, 2021) Multinational agrichemical corporation Bayer/Monsanto released a proposal last week to provide up to $200,000 per claimant in compensation to future victims of its Roundup weed killer, according to Reuters. The proposed settlement, agreed to with lawyers representing victims, continues Bayer/Monsanto’s attempts to limit the spiraling cost Roundup lawsuits, which have awarded individual victims millions of dollars in damages. The company appears to consider the proposal a good investment, as it has announced no plans to stop sale and production of its carcinogenic weed killer. However, under the current proposal, plaintiffs would not be forced to go through a compensation fund, and could seek additional punitive damages through a separate suit. As the attorney for Roundup victims, Elizabeth Casbraser, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, told the Wall Street Journal, “It’s really about options, and it’s really about choice. I think it’s a great option that offers predictability and transparency for people who don’t want to wait, who want to be compensated.”

To stop the surge of cancer victims – comprising roughly 125,000 lawsuits – from further damaging the company financially, Bayer/Monsanto last year proposed a $10.9 billion settlement with current litigants. Unresolved future claims were part of this proposal. The company had asked the judge to allow for a panel of experts to review cancer claims and determine whether a causal connection exists. But the judge rejected this idea. Bayer/Monsanto has been in talks with plaintiff lawyers since.

Bayer/Monsanto has fought and lost several rounds of legal battles up until this point. Its first major loss centered around California school groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, who won an initial $289 million jury verdict against Monsanto in 2018 for his development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) after exposure to Roundup. The first $39 million was awarded for compensation, while $250 million in punitive damages came after a finding that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression” by suppressing the link between its product and cancer. That amount was later amended by a judge to $78 million. The second case, again in California, found unanimously in favor of the plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman. Mr. Hardeman told the jury he had used Roundup since the 1980s to spray poison oak and weeds around his property, resulting in his NHL diagnosis in 2014. He was awarded $5.27 million, while his punitive damages were ultimately reduced from $75 to $20 million. The third major glyphosate trial concerned the Pilliods, a California couple that had used Roundup for more than 30 years to kill weeds on properties they owned. The couple was originally awarded a staggering $2.055 billion by the jury in 2019, which was ultimately reduced to $87 million.

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

The current proposal is an outgrowth of these discussions. If accepted, the company would be liable for between $5,000 to $200,000 for each future NHL victim who makes a claim against the company, with awards depending on health conditions, age, prior Roundup use, and other considerations. Compensation would be taken from a $1.33 billion sum of money. Another $750 million would be used to fund NHL cancer monitoring programs, pay lawyer fees (who will provide free legal assistance to future victims), and establish an advisory panel, “whose findings would not be preclusive but can be used as evidence in potential future litigation involving class members,” according to a Bayer press release. Many health advocates note that the cost of NHL cancer treatment can easily be tens of thousands of dollars for every year of treatment, notwithstanding other likely complications.  

Most egregious to the company’s proposal is that it still plans to continue selling Roundup. According to reports, Bayer/Monsanto will ask EPA for permission to place a link to a website providing information on the science behind the safety of glyphosate. If the proposed website is anything like any other piece of information released by Bayer/Monsanto, it is highly unlikely to provide the facts consumers need to make informed choices about their health. Advocates note that Bayer has a long history of spinning the science on pesticide toxicity in a way that favors its bottom line at the expense of public health and the environment.

Based on  history, it is unfathomable that any consumer would take Bayer/Monsanto’s word regarding the safety of its products. The actions of the company are exactly the sort one would expect from a faceless, multi-national corporation focused solely on profits and executive compensation. To fight back against this, concerned US residents must demand new laws, and greater scrutiny from government regulators. While the agrichemical industry has strong footholds in U.S. agencies, public pressure can change the way business is done.

There are many routes advocates can take. Join with Beyond Pesticides in actions pressuring Congress and the new Biden administration to embrace greater oversight on toxic pesticides, and safer ways of managing pests. Take further action at the local level to ban not just glyphosate, but all toxic pesticides that could be used in your community. Purchase organic food whenever possible to decrease demand for toxic pesticides. And read up on the latest science on the hazards of pesticides through Beyond Pesticides Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Reuters, Wall Street Journal

(Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2021) Immediately following his inauguration, President Biden issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the heads of all executive departments and agencies to produce recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review, with a goal of promoting public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. This Executive Order, if effective, will  reverse the historical trend of status-quo regulatory reviews required by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that typically support vested economic interests of polluters (e.g., petroleum-based pesticide and fertilizer manufacturers). Instead, the President’s EO, Modernizing Regulatory Review, sets the stage for the adoption of agency policy across government to seriously and with urgency confront the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and disproportionate harm to people of color communities (environmental racism).

Key agencies that can have a systemic effect in meeting these existential challenges are the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Interior (DOI), Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOL/OSHA). But the EO will remain words on a page unless we all across the country exercise our voice and advocate for the changes necessary to end our reliance on hazardous chemicals and immediately embrace the viability of nonpolluting alternatives, like organic agriculture and land management.  No one expects the polluting corporations to shrink in the face of a shift to a green economy—which makes our voice and oversight all that more important.

Tell the heads of EPA, DOI, USDA, and DOL/OSHA to review decisions allowing toxic chemical use based on available alternatives—technologies, practices, and products—that reduce or eliminate hazards.

Ever since the Reagan administration, regulatory review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and the Budget (OMB) has prevented agencies from promulgating new regulations based on new science and technologies that are more protective of health and the environment. OIRA acts as a gatekeeper to new regulations and has generally resisted changes to the status quo—even in regulations designed to adapt to new science and technology. An example of such regulations is the sunset process created in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which was is designed to review synthetic materials allowed in organic production every five years and remove them if they no longer meet OFPA criteria.

There are many examples of such regulations, and OIRA no longer needs to explicitly deny changes in regulations because agencies restrict their own actions based on the fear of OIRA review. President Biden’s Executive Order offers an opportunity for OIRA/OMB and federal agencies to place new criteria on changes in regulations. Instead of protecting the status quo, the review should be based on the President’s priorities as stated in the Modernizing Regulatory Review EO.

To be meaningful, regulatory reviews, in accordance with the EO, must analyze existing regulatory decisions on registration, allowance, and/or use of toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in the context of available alternatives—technologies, practices and products—that reduce or eliminate hazards. We urge that all agencies immediately conduct an alternatives assessment that evaluates available organic practices in accordance with 7 CFR 205.600, the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under the National Organic Program. This is especially important in the context of protecting health and the environment and ensuring racial equity in the application of regulations that currently allow for disproportionate and elevated risk for farmworkers and landscapers, as well as fenceline communities and people of color. These communities currently suffer disproportionate risk due to toxic chemical exposure, comorbidities, and elevated vulnerabilities to diseases and COVID-19 that are ignored under current regulatory reviews.

The tools are available now to end the use of toxic chemicals in current land management practices nationwide, including the management of agricultural land and landscapes, yet regulations allow disproportionate harm to black, brown, and indigenous people that is associated with a chain of poisoning and contamination from production to transportation, application, and disposal. The EO, if it is to be implemented in the spirit that is intended, requires that each agency conduct a full assessment of actions that it can take immediately to eliminate or reduce the current harms being inflicted that are unnecessary, given the availability of organic (as defined in federal law) alternatives.

Tell the heads of EPA, DOI, USDA, and DOL/OSHA to review decisions allowing toxic chemical use based on available alternatives—technologies, practices, and products—that reduce or eliminate hazards.

To the (new) heads of EPA, DOI, USDA, and DOL/OSHA:

Immediately following his inauguration, President Biden issued an Executive Order (EO) directing the heads of all executive departments and agencies to produce recommendations for improving and modernizing regulatory review, with a goal of promoting public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. This Executive Order, Modernizing Regulatory Review, sets the stage for the adoption of agency policy to seriously and with urgency confront the climate crisis, biodiversity collapse, and disproportionate harm to people of color communities (environmental racism).

I ask your agency to conduct a review, in accordance with the Modernizing Regulatory Review EO, to analyze existing regulatory decisions on registration, allowance, and/or use of toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in the context of available alternatives—technologies, practices and products— that reduce or eliminate hazards. I urge you to immediately conduct an alternatives assessment—associated with all your regulatory and administrative decisions— that evaluates available organic practices in accordance with 7 CFR 205.600, the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under the National Organic Program. This is especially important in the context of protecting health and the environment and ensuring racial equity in the application of regulations that currently allow for disproportionate and elevated risk for farmworkers and landscapers, as well as fenceline and people of color communities. These communities currently suffer disproportionate risk due to toxic chemical exposure, comorbidities, and elevated vulnerabilities to diseases and COVID-19 that are ignored under your current regulatory reviews.

The tools are now available to end the use of toxic chemicals in current land management practices, including the management of agricultural land and landscapes, yet the regulations of your agency allow disproportionate harm to black, brown, and indigenous people that is associated with a chain of poisoning and contamination from production to transportation, application, and disposal. The EO, if it is to be implemented in the spirit that is intended, requires that your agency conduct a full assessment of actions that it can take immediately to eliminate or reduce the current harms being inflicted that are unnecessary, given the availability of organic (as defined in federal law) alternatives.

Please know that there is a wealth of information on the efficacy, economic viability, and profitability of organic management practices that replace your agency’s current assumption about the need for, or reasonableness of, toxic chemical dependency. We urge that this information be utilized in all your regulatory and administrative decision-making in order to eliminate the current unnecessary reliance on toxic materials.

I look forward to your agency’s alternative organic analysis full implementation of the Modernizing Regulatory Review EO.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 5, 2021) The American public has witnessed, in the barely launched tenure of President Joe Biden, a surge of Executive Orders (EOs). Based on the first flurry of orders, much of the Biden “reset” appears gauged to beat back Trump policies that worsened an already inadequate regulatory system, and to reconfigure federal operations and regulations so as to address and solve the biggest threats (beyond COVID) the country faces. Among the high-profile EOs already issued are three that stand out. One recalibrates the operations of the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) to forward health, racial equity, and environmental stewardship. A second and third seek, respectively, to restore scientific integrity and elevate the role of science across the federal government, and to tackle comprehensively the climate crisis with a “whole of government” approach. Beyond Pesticides welcomes these early efforts, and maintains that vigilance and robust advocacy will be necessary to achieve needed paradigmatic change across federal agencies, which exist to protect and support the American people.

EOs are tools the President can wield to manage directly some operations of the federal government. They are seen as muscular and immediate means through which to change course, particularly in the early stage of a new administration; the “check” on EOs is that they can generally be reversed by the next President. Policies are more durable when they emanate from legislation, but EOs can be an important way to undo bad practices relatively immediately, and to signal changed priorities and intentions to federal agencies (which are housed in the Executive Branch), Congress, and the public.

President Biden’s Executive Orders, to date, have all contained strong signals of his priorities (beyond dealing with the COVID crisis): addressing racial inequity, the climate crisis, scientific integrity, and economic retooling for a greener, more-sustainable economy that changes lives. Notably, a different and defining feature of the Biden administration is its promotion and understanding of climate change as both a national security and a foreign policy priority.

The Executive Order on the OMB — “Modernizing Regulatory Review” — has significant potential to shift the cultures and actions of federal agencies. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB has, for decades, reviewed significant Executive Branch regulatory actions. The Trump (and other) administrations have advantaged industry interests through these reviews, ensuring that their economic interests often prevail over protection of public health and the environment. Reviews have been conducted so as to block regulation because of presumed “economic dislocation” (impacts such as job losses through plant shutdowns, layoffs, and other industry responses to regulation). Business interests have lobbied for, endorsed, and enjoyed the benefits.

Examples of this include EPA’s nonsensical avoidance of regulating nanotechnology, and industry pushback enabled by USDA (the United States Department of Agriculture) when the NOSB (National Organic Standards Board) has attempted to “delist” certain unacceptable synthetic materials (for use in organic agriculture) from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Beyond Pesticides maintains that the Biden revamp of OMB reviews must lead to the challenging of economic “status quo” regulations, and support at EPA, for example, for pesticide alternatives that can deliver their own significant and sustainable economic, health, and environmental benefits. Organic production methods, of course, top that list.

“The EO, if it is to be implemented in the spirit that is intended, requires that all federal agencies, with specific focus on EPA, USDA, DOI (Department of Interior), and FDA, conduct a full assessment of actions that they can take immediately to eliminate or reduce the current harms being inflicted that are not justifiable given the availability of organic (as defined in federal law) alternatives,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The language of the new OMB order acknowledges that the country “faces serious challenges, including a massive global pandemic; a major economic downturn; systemic racial inequality; and the undeniable reality and accelerating threat of climate change. . . . It is the policy of my Administration to mobilize the power of the Federal Government to rebuild our Nation and address these and other challenges.” The EO then directs the Director of OMB to produce a set of recommendations to modernize and improve its regulatory review process and make concrete suggestions “on how the regulatory review process can promote public health and safety, economic growth, social welfare, racial justice, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. The recommendations should also include proposals that would ensure that regulatory review serves as a tool to affirmatively promote regulations that advance these values. These recommendations should be informed by public engagement with relevant stakeholders.”

This EO includes provisions to “ensure that the review process promotes policies that reflect new developments in scientific and economic understanding, fully accounts for regulatory benefits that are difficult or impossible to quantify, and does not have harmful anti-regulatory or deregulatory effects. . . . [and] “ensure that regulatory initiatives appropriately benefit and do not inappropriately burden disadvantaged, vulnerable, or marginalized communities.”

The EO on scientific integrity — “Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking” — has the potential to remake culture and priorities at many federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Energy, Education, and Interior; the Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Federal Communications Commission, National Transportation Safety Board; and a host of others, including national security entities.

The order begins with: “It is the policy of my Administration to make evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data. Scientific and technological information, data, and evidence are central to the development and iterative improvement of sound policies, and to the delivery of equitable programs, across every area of government. Scientific findings should never be distorted or influenced by political considerations. . . . Improper political interference in the work of Federal scientists or other scientists who support the work of the Federal Government and in the communication of scientific facts undermines the welfare of the Nation, contributes to systemic inequities and injustices, and violates the trust that the public places in government to best serve its collective interests.”

The order also creates an interagency Task Force on Scientific Integrity charged with reviewing the effectiveness of agency scientific-integrity policies, including specific attention to any improper political interference in research and data gathering, or suppression or distortion of scientific information. The Task Force must also consider whether the independence of communication of scientific information is protected, and whether agency support of researchers and scientists, and delivery of federal programming, are equitable. Beyond review, there are also many action steps identified in the order. Beyond Pesticides has pointed to the corruption of scientific integrity again and again. Given the prior administration’s corrupt conduct, the charge of this task force represents a massive set of tasks.

Relatedly, in late January, a federal judge paused the Trump EPA’s 11th-hour and misleadingly named “secret science” rule, which would have limited the kinds of research that could be used by the agency in developing regulatory rules. The rule, which was made final without a required 30-day notice, was deemed by Montana federal district judge Brian Morris to have been unlawfully rushed by EPA; he called the finalization of the rule so close to the inauguration “arbitrary” and “capricious.” The Biden administration will need to act on this pending rule soon; given the EO on scientific integrity, it is unlikely to survive review intact.

A third, high visibility EO — one of many recently announced initiatives on climate — is the “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” Its language checks a lot of boxes: “It is, therefore, the policy of my Administration to listen to the science; to improve public health and protect our environment; to ensure access to clean air and water; to limit exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; to hold polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change; to restore and expand our national treasures and monuments; and to prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the well-paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals.”

The EO directs all Executive Branch departments to “immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.” It directs federal agency attention for revised rulemaking to, especially: methane reduction in the fossil fuel sector, ambitious fuel economy standards in transportation, energy efficiency in buildings and appliances, and air pollution from fossil-fuel powered electricity generation. Agency heads must forward any new proposed or amended rules not only to OMB, as is customary, but also, to the National Climate Advisor (Gina McCarthy, currently). In this EO, a line jumps out as emblematic of the turn this administration represents away from the pro-industry loyalty of the last: “In carrying out the actions directed in this section, heads of agencies shall seek input from the public and stakeholders, including State local, Tribal, and territorial officials, scientists, labor unions, environmental advocates, and environmental justice organizations.”

A shift from the Trump administration’s antipathy and an important step in using true cost accounting shines through in this language in the EO: “It is essential that agencies capture the full costs of greenhouse gas emissions as accurately as possible, including by taking global damages into account. . . . The ‘social cost of carbon’ (SCC), ‘social cost of nitrous oxide’ (SCN), and ‘social cost of methane’ (SCM) are estimates of the monetized damages associated with incremental increases in greenhouse gas emissions. They are intended to include changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damage from increased flood risk, and the value of ecosystem services. An accurate social cost is essential for agencies to accurately determine the social benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions when conducting cost-benefit analyses of regulatory and other actions.”

The EO further establishes a White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council and a White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council “to prioritize environmental justice and ensure a whole-of-government approach to addressing current and historical environmental injustices.” It is also this EO that revokes the permit for the notorious Keystone XL Pipeline; pauses oil and gas drilling leases on federal lands and water; and launches a review of existing energy leases. The Biden administration has set a goal of conserving at least 30% of federal lands and oceans by 2030.

Finally, the order calls for the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps that would “put a new generation of Americans to work conserving and restoring public lands and waters, increasing reforestation, increasing carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector, protecting biodiversity, improving access to recreation, and addressing the changing climate.”

Whew.

President Biden’s recent EOs are aimed at both undoing some of the worst harms of the last administration, and setting a new tone and stage for effective and protective governance. Notably, the themes of racial equity and the climate crisis are woven through many of the new Executive Orders, underscoring the urgent need for attention to systemic inequities, environmental justice, and comprehensive action on climate. Regular Beyond Pesticides readers will be familiar with its coverage of how EPA’s approach to pesticide regulation is by nature racist. For example, risk assessment that calculates “acceptable” risks across population groups does not account for the disproportionate effect that pesticide use has on people in communities of color, and the agency’s failure to consider both occupational and nonoccupational exposures in its cumulative risk assessment contributes to the inequity of “risk” that then becomes codified in regulation.

The attention in the EOs to (and expected action on) the climate crisis — which also disproportionately affects communities of color and low-income communities — has the potential to ameliorate disparate impacts. Not least among those is the intended shift from a petroleum-based economy to one powered by renewable (“green”) energy, à la the Green New Deal or a similar initiative, which can be expected not only to create many new, nontoxic jobs, but also, to phase out the hegemony of the petroleum industry, which dominates in many communities of color.

A significant part of addressing the climate, equity, and toxics crises will be a retooling of agriculture and land management — from the petrochemical-dependent approach that dominates now to an organic and regenerative one. Such a system would protect public health, the environment, and biodiversity; end the poisoning of farmworkers and their families, and landscape workers; ultimately eliminate most petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester far more carbon than conventional agriculture can. The shift from a petroleum-based economy to a “green” economy represents benefits across many sectors, including fenceline communities that have borne the overwhelming brunt of environmental injustices.

According to advocates, all of the “words on paper” of the various Executive Orders are a very welcome beginning to the redress of the harms of the past four years, and of decades prior, and to a real shift in national priorities. Yet it must be recognized that translating what is written in these orders to an effective paradigm and cultural change across federal agencies is a daunting task. Federal agencies are entrenched in “status quo” thinking and operations, which too often fail to protect the public and allow, for example, use of dangerous pesticides and planet-killing fossil fuels — even when alternative strategies and materials, such as organic and regenerative agriculture, and renewable energy infrastructure, already exist and can be fully realized. This new administration provides a potential watershed in the transition to organics, green energy, and myriad other systems that cause negligible, and less disproportionate, harm.

Getting the charges of these EOs translated into concrete actions across federal agencies, and ultimately, into legislation that is much harder to “undo” by subsequent administrations, will require significant advocacy with agencies and legislators. It is critical that leaders and staff of federal agencies — beleaguered, discouraged, and in some cases, a skeletal version of what they used to be (thanks to the Trump administration) — are supported and encouraged by the administration, and by the public. Critically, the American people need to reach out to agencies, and to elected officials, to say, “Yes! These are the changes we want!” The public can also push forward on this agenda by supporting nongovernmental environmental and public health organizations that advocate for a less toxic, greener, and more-equitable future. Please get engaged in this work; join Beyond Pesticides; sign up for our Action Alerts; and/or contact Beyond Pesticides for more information on how to work for these critical, and hopeful, changes.

Sources: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/modernizing-regulatory-review/ and https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-executive-actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad-create-jobs-and-restore-scientific-integrity-across-federal-government/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 4, 2021) A review published in Food and Chemical Toxicology suggests organophosphorus pesticides (OPs) may increase the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to cause COVID-19, especially among vulnerable individuals with underlying medical conditions. Organophosphorus pesticides have a wide range of biological uses that makes these chemicals ubiquitous, significantly contaminating both terrestrial (land) and aquatic (water) environments. However, OPs are highly toxic, originating from the same compounds as World War II nerve agents. Moreover, OPs are one of the leading causes of poisoning globally. Therefore, it is vital to understand how OPs exposure will impact human health in conjunction with other immunologically compromising diseases like COVID-19.

Considering COVID-19 and OP exposure act similarly on the respiratory system, exacerbating adverse inflammatory responses, reviews like these highlight the significance of evaluating synergism between diseases and toxic chemicals to safeguard human health. Researchers in the study note, “To curb SARS-CoV-2 infection, a healthy immune system is obligatory despite potent vaccine to alleviate morbidities in patients. But unintentional exposure to OP compounds from several sources can rupture the antiviral defense against SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, respiratory ailments may also be fueled by OP compounds. Hence, SARS-CoV-2 mediated morbidities and fatalities could be backed by unintentional exposure to OPs in patients.”

Amidst the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), the global demand for pesticides, including disinfectants and sanitizers, has increased substantially as a means of preventing illness in domestic and community settings. Additionally, the increasing pervasiveness of moist environments from severe weather events like hurricanes increases the amount of mold and mosquito pests in some areas, causing higher inputs of fungicides and insecticides to combat the issue. However, exposure to these toxic pesticides can weaken the body’s immune response to illnesses, creating an environment for underlying condition (like respiratory issues such as asthma or endocrine disruption problems like diabetes) to flourish among vulnerable individuals.

In this review, researchers examine the structure, transmission-pattern, and respiratory immune response associated with SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, researchers inspect OP exposure impacts on humans and animals using a combination of in vivo and in vitro studies. Lastly, the review investigates the benefits of antioxidants and co-exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and OP compounds as a means of mitigating disease causes and effects. 

The immune system offers the best defense against coronavirus-infection, as the virus stimulates an innate and adaptive immune response to expel viral particles from the body. Innate immune responses are the first line of defense against viral infections, activating myeloid immunocytes (cells that mediate immune responses against pathogens). These mediating cells create antibodies that the complement system (a network of proteins that eliminate pathogens) enhances. Therefore, review researchers speculate immunocytes and the complement system can restrict coronavirus-infections. However, coronavirus infections can suppress/delay interferon (INF) protein synthesis responsible for defending against viral infections, causing a lapse in the innate defense system. Similarly, an adaptive immune response involves various immune cells and antibodies essential to protect against coronavirus infections. Still, injury to cells responsible for safeguarding against viral infections can induce more severe disease progression, immunocompromising the respiratory system of COVD-19 patients.

OP compounds are immunotoxicants. They modify the structure of lymphoid organs responsible for immunocyte cell production, causing injury and alteration to the cells. Additionally, these compounds lower antibody concentration and reduce autoimmune response to stimuli. The review finds current OPs, including chlorpyrifos and malathion, induce oxidative stress and DNA damage in immune system blood cells, similar to one of the most toxic, restricted OPs, methyl parathion. Furthermore, OPs can disrupt the homeostasis of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses of cytokine proteins like INF responsible for immune protection.

This review demonstrates many immunotoxic similarities between OP exposure poisoning and coronavirus. Both OPs and coronavirus attack the immune system impacting immune cell concentrations (via death or injury), altering immune protein function and response, and dampening autoimmune reaction. Similarly, coronavirus and OP exposure predominantly impact respiratory capacity, causing various ailments that can lead to respiratory failure. Although, coronavirus can induce other adverse immunological outcomes, such as cardiac dysfunction, gastrointestinal issues, kidney damage, and dermal reactions, studies find OP exposure can have similar adverse multi-organ effects. Therefore, co-exposure to OPs and coronavirus can exacerbate disease effects in COVID-19 patients, with additional exposure to OPs intensifying inflammatory response and respiratory issues that can lead to death.

COVID-19 is a systemic (general) disease that overwhelmingly impacts the respiratory system of many patients. The respiratory system is essential to human survival, regulating gas exchange (oxygen-carbon dioxide) in the body to balance acid and base tissue cells for normal function. However, damage to the respiratory system can cause a plethora of issues—from asthma and bronchitis to oxidative stress that triggers the development of extra-respiratory, systemic manifestations like rheumatoid arthritis, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, underlying medical conditions (i.e., heart/kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, obesity, etc.) heighten risks associated with severe illness from disease, including COVID-19.

Exposure to organophosphate pesticides (i.e., chlorpyrifos, malathion, diazinon, etc.) can heavily influence the respiratory system. Studies link pesticide use and residue to various respiratory illnesses. Organophosphates produce adverse effects on the nervous system, having the same mode-of-action as nerve agents for chemical warfare. 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.

Although most OP uses in the U.S. are agricultural, toxicity experts recommend a ban on all OP uses as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and World Health Organization (WHO) consider over 40 OPs that are moderately or highly hazardous to human health. States, including Hawaii, California, New York, and Maryland, plan to phase out chlorpyrifos use in agriculture following evidence of neurotoxic effects on children. However, other OPs remain in use despite their notorious toxicity. 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. Therefore, OPs remain a human health risk in conjunction with respiratory distress commencing from diseases like COVID-19, especially to individuals with underlying medical conditions.

This review reinforces evidence that OP exposure can compromise immune function against viral infections. A healthy immune system is vital to overcome coronavirus infections. However, exposure to OPs before, during, and possibly after coronavirus infections may promote adverse respiratory function and inflammatory responses in patients. Moreover, researchers suggest OP-induced immune cell death from oxidative stress may reduce vaccine effectiveness due to the lack of antibodies.

The review researchers conclude that world leaders should investigate potential augmented interactions (synergism) between OPs and deadly viral pathogens like coronavirus to protect human health: “Since direct experimental works dissecting the collaborative impacts of OPs and SARS-CoV-2 are still lacking, this review will attract the scientific community across the planet to concentrate on the proposed hypothesis to unveil the synergism between the two threats to the human race. Serious health problems discussed in the review will also draw attention of global environmental policymakers and concerned government/non-government organizations toward the perilous impacts of OP exposure in humans. Alongside, it will insist them to adopt necessary resolutions and amend policies that could limit human contacts with OPs.”

As the U.S. COVID-19 cases continue to rise, there is an urgent need to evaluate the effect pesticide exposure and uses have on health outcomes of disease. Although some practices and products can prevent coronavirus infections, the continued use of toxic pesticides in the surrounding environment increases disease risk factors. Pesticide use should not allow harm to those disproportionally affected by these chemicals, including people of color, essential workers, and farm/landscape workers who may suffer elevated rates of exposure to the virus. Advocates maintain individuals and government officials alike should assess all risks associated with pesticide use, including the mode of action. However, EPA’s failure to respond to current science is a significant shortcoming of its risk assessment process, especially regarding disease implications.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent health studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on asthma/respiratory effects, cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases. Additionally, learn how to protect yourself from COVID-19 safely by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers for more information. 

Beyond Pesticides advocates a precautionary approach to pest management in land management and agriculture by transiting to organic. Learn more about how the lack of adequate pesticide use regulations, including organophosphates, can impact human and environmental health using Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article “Highly Destructive Pesticide Effects Unregulated.”

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

Source: Food and Chemical Toxicology 

(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2021) Hundreds of millions of people are being injured by pesticides every year, according to the first global estimate of unintentional human pesticide poisoning released in three decades. The systematic review, published in BMC Public Health highlights the grave result of modern civilization’s reliance on toxic chemicals to manage weeds and other pests. While international agencies like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) endorse the phase out of highly hazardous pesticides, advocates say that goal should be the starting point in a broader paradigm shift to global organic production.

To determine the extent of unintentional poisonings, researchers reviewed scientific literature published between 2006 and 2018, including 157 publications and World Health Organization databases. The search ultimately covered 141 countries. Of these, 740,000 cases of unintentional poisoning were found, with roughly 7,500 resulting in death. Extrapolating that data, scientists estimate 385 million unintentional poisonings worldwide, including 11,000 fatalities. That number encompasses an astounding 44% of the entire global farming population of 860 million.

The authors note the importance of understanding the impact of pesticide poisonings that injure, but do not kill. “There is a need to recognize the high burden of non-fatal UAPP, particularly on farmers and farmworkers, and that the current focus solely on fatalities hampers international efforts in risk assessment and prevention of poisoning,” the study reads.

This is a critical aspect of pesticide incidents. If an accidental pesticide poisoning does not kill outright, it can result a range of chronic or long-term health issues. These health burdens further stress agricultural workers and their families. The costs of caretaking, transportation, health care, coupled with loss of income from pesticide injury can be overwhelming.

Individuals can also experience problems unique to their poisoning, with few available resources for treatment. Although there is growing recognition in the medical community of multiple chemical sensitivity or toxicant induced loss of tolerance, many individuals remain housebound due to risks from everyday exposure to chemicals in our environment. Beyond Pesticides receives dozens of calls each year from individuals experiencing the chronic effects of pesticide poisoning.

While eliminating the most acutely toxic pesticides on the market would make a major impact, there is a larger problem with our approach to growing food. Industrial fertilizers and pesticides enabled a rapid increase in production through the 20^th century, but the long-term benefit is under serious question. Widespread poisoning of people and the planet, and the pollution of soil, air, water and food have brought considerable suffering. Industrial agriculture has been linked to the decline of pollinators and insects in general, rise in antibiotic resistance, violations of human rights, and a range of chronic disease, among a number of other adverse impacts.

Pesticide dependency is a path the world can choose not to follow. But a transition to safer practices is not simple. It requires education, buy-in, and support from government and consumers. Ultimately, organic agriculture can and must feed the world.  Alternative practices that work with, rather than against nature, such as biological pest management, show historical benefits that rival the green revolution. Organic agriculture addresses the failings of chemical-intensive farming on health and the environment while maintaining good yields at roughly the same cost.

Most importantly, farmers and farmworkers who grow organic food are not exposed to highly hazardous pesticides, as pesticide products compatible with organic production (which are only used as a last resort) must undergo additional, independent review for their impacts on human health.

While unintentional pesticide poisoning is much more frequent in an agricultural setting, it can happen anywhere at any time – from an apartment building contractor, HOA landscaper, neighbor, or even when simply walking one’s dog around the block. If you’ve been poisoned by pesticides, follow the steps on Beyond Pesticides What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency webpage.  After you’ve gone through the process, consider submitting a Pesticide Incident Report so that we have your story on file for regulators. Reach out to [email protected] for assistance.

Read more about diseases linked to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, and for more information about why organic is the right choice for our farming future, see Beyond Pesticides organic program page.

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

Source: BMC Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, February 2, 2021) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will evaluate the effect of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid on endangered species, after an agreement was reached between the agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Imidacloprid is one of the most commonly used insecticides in the world today and, like other neonicotinoids in its chemical class, has been linked to a range of adverse impacts on wildlife and their habitat. While the agreement to the assess effects on endangered species is important, advocates note that EPA should already have conducted this review, and further, that imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids should already be banned.

NRDC’s successful lawsuit follows a separate legal challenge by the Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, beekeepers, and other environmental organizations which was settled in 2019. The judge in that case, focused on the neonicotinoids clothianidin and thiamethoxam, did not order EPA to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (which is required when registering a pesticide in order to mitigate risks to endangered species). Instead, she directed the parties, including the plaintiffs, defendant EPA, and intervenor Bayer CropScience (the manufacturer of neonicotinoids), to move forward with a settlement conference to resolve the disputes. The end result requires EPA to remove 12 products containing neonicotinoid active ingredients.

Under the settlement reached with NRDC, EPA is required to publish a biological evaluation on imidacloprid’s effect on endangered species, and allow time for public comment and review. The agency will then be required, by June 2022, to provide an “effects determination.” Under the endangered species act, further regulation is required on a pesticide that may effect an endangered species or the habitat it relies upon.  An effect determination will therefore guide a regulatory response by the agency.

NRDC remains in discussion with EPA regarding outstanding claims against two remaining neonicotinoids: dinotefuran and acetamiprid.

There is a wide range of evidence linking neonicotinoids, and imidacloprid in particular, to adverse impacts on wildlife. The chemicals have been linked to the decline of pollinators, birds, contamination of aquatic ecosystems, and birth defects and other malformations in mammals. The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, a group consisting of 242 scientists from across the world, penned in 2018 an open letter to regulators and policymakers calling for restrictions on neonicotinoid insecticides. The scientists indicate that, “The balance of evidence strongly suggests that these chemicals are harming beneficial insects and contributing to the current massive loss of global biodiversity.”

While regulators in the European Union and Canada have made determinations that resulted in meaningful bans against neonicotinoid use, EPA has consistently dragged its feet. Over the last four years, the agency acted consistently sided with the agrichemical industry over the health of the general public and the ecosystems upon which life depends. But troubles with EPA did not start four years ago, compounding the challenge for health and environmental advocates.

Beyond Pesticides is calling on President Biden to reverse course and take EPA and other federal agencies in a new direction focused on systemic change. Join us in calling on the current administration to end the era of corporate deception in pesticide regulation. After taking action at the federal level, focus on grassroots organizing, where real change can take place.

Get involved at the community level to pass policies that protect imperiled pollinators. Right now, without adequate federal protection from toxic pesticides like imidacloprid, endangered monarch butterflies and rusty patched bumblebees need concerned communities throughout the country to step in and makes changes that give these species fighting chance. Use Beyond Pesticides’ resources and educational materials, including our BEE Protective doorknob hangers to get the word out.

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

Source: NRDC press release, Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2021) The yearly winter monarch count along the California coast, overseen each year by the conservation group Xerces Society, was the lowest ever. In 2020, citizen scientists counted only 2,000 butterflies. The findings indicate that many on the planet today are, within their lifetimes, likely to experience a world where western monarchs are extinct.

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list monarch butterflies on the list of threatened and endangered species. Tell the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate pollinator poisons.

Western monarchs migrate from the Pacific Northwest to overwintering grounds along the California coast, where they remain in relatively stationary clusters that are easy to count. In the 1980s, roughly 10 million monarchs overwintered along the coast. By the 1990s, that number fell to 1.2 million. Five years ago, counts were at roughly 300,000. By 2019, numbers crashed below 30,000.

This year’s count saw no monarchs at well-known overwintering sites like Pacific Grove. Other locations, like Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove and National Bridges State Park, saw only a few hundred. “These sites normally host thousands of butterflies, and their absence this year was heartbreaking for volunteers and visitors flocking to these locales hoping to catch a glimpse of the awe-inspiring clusters of monarch butterflies,” said Sarina Jepsen, director of endangered species at the Xerces Society.

Decline is driven by human activity. Climate change, habitat destruction, and the use of toxic pesticides are causing “death by a thousand cuts,” says Xerces Society executive director Scott Black.

A changing climate impacts environmental cues that trigger breeding, migration, and hibernation in monarchs. Climate-induced extreme weather events such as wildfires, severe storms, and droughts further stress populations. Habitat destruction has occurred through the displacement of natural land with industrial development, and logging and other damage to monarch overwintering sites. Milkweed plants that monarchs require as larval food have been found to contain pesticides at levels that can kill them—one study found toxic pesticides in every milkweed plant tested. Herbicides, like glyphosate (Roundup), that do not kill monarchs directly are killing milkweed, exacerbating concerns around habitat destruction. Each of these stressors are harmful on its own, but stress is compounded by their combination.

A study published in the journal Biological Conservation in 2017 (while numbers were still ~300,000) determined that western monarchs faced a 72% chance of extinction in 20 years and an 86% chance of extinction within the next 50 years. “This study doesn’t just show that there are fewer monarchs now than 35 years ago,” said study coauthor Cheryl Schultz, PhD, at Washington State University. “It also tells us that, if things stay the same, western monarchs probably won’t be around as we know them in another 35 years.”

Eastern monarchs are also suffering. This population migrates from the U.S. East and Midwest to overwintering grounds in Mexico each year. A 2018 study published by a research team at University of Florida found that this population has declined by 80% since 2005. Two years after that study was published, the 2019/2020 eastern monarch count conducted by citizen scientists found another 53% reduction. Eastern monarchs are counted by the number of acres they occupy. In 2019/20, this number was 7 acres, down from 15 acres the prior year. Scientists have determined that 15 acres is the minimum threshold necessary to prevent total migratory collapse. A report from the World Wildlife Fund estimates that at the current rate of decline, the eastern monarch migration could collapse within 20 years.

Wildlife and conservation groups urged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list monarchs under the Endangered Species Act. Late last December, the Trump Administration announced it was a candidate for listing, but that listing is “precluded by work on higher-priority listing actions.” The Biden administration must follow through with listing and protective actions.

Monarchs may be the most charismatic pollinator to fall in the age of the insect apocalypse. But unless meaningful changes are made, it will not be the last. Recent research published in Biological Conservation show that 41% of insect species are declining and 30% are endangered, with an overall rate of insect decline at 2.5% each year.

Tell the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list monarch butterflies on the list of threatened and endangered species. Tell the Environmental Protection Agency to eliminate pollinator poisons.

Letter to Martha Williams, Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The yearly winter monarch count along the California coast was the lowest ever. In 2020, citizen scientists counted only 2,000 butterflies. The findings indicate the imminent extinction of western monarchs. Urgent action is required to implement a plan to protect monarchs as an endangered species!

Western monarchs migrate from the Pacific Northwest to overwintering grounds along the California coast, where they remain in relatively stationary clusters that are easy to count.  In the 1980s, roughly 10 million monarchs overwintered along the coast. By the 1990s, the number fell to 1.2 million. Five years ago, counts were at roughly 300,000. By 2019, numbers had crashed below 30,000.

This year’s count saw no monarchs at well-known overwintering sites like Pacific Grove. Other locations, like Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove and National Bridges State Park, saw only a few hundred.

Decline is driven by human activity. Climate change, habitat destruction, and the use of toxic pesticides are combining to threaten the species. The way to initiate action to protect monarchs is to include them on the list of threatened and endangered species.

A changing climate alters environmental cues that trigger monarchs to breed, migrate, and hibernate. Climate-induced extreme weather events such as wildfires, severe storms, and droughts further stress populations. Habitat destruction includes logging, the displacement of natural land by industrial development, and other damage to monarch breeding and overwintering sites. Milkweed plants that monarchs require as larval food have been found to contain pesticides at levels that can kill them– one study found toxic pesticides in every milkweed plant tested. Herbicides, like glyphosate (Roundup), that do not kill monarchs directly kill milkweed, exacerbating habitat destruction. Each of these stressors is harmful on its own, but their combination compounds the damage.

A study published in the journal Biological Conservation in 2017 (while numbers were still ~300,000) determined that western monarchs faced a 72% chance of extinction in 20 years and an 86% chance of extinction within the next 50 years.

Eastern monarchs are also suffering. This population migrates from the US East and Midwest to overwintering grounds in Mexico each year. A 2018 study by researchers at University of Florida found that this population has declined by 80% since 2005. Two years later, the 2019/2020 eastern monarch count conducted by citizen scientists found another 53% reduction. Eastern monarchs are counted by the number of acres they occupy. In 2019/20, this number was 7 acres, down from 15 acres the prior year. Scientists have determined that 15 acres is the minimum threshold necessary to prevent total migratory collapse. A report from the World Wildlife Fund estimates that at the current rate of decline, the eastern monarch migration could collapse within 20 years.

Wildlife and conservation groups urged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the monarch under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Late last December, the Trump Administration announced it was a candidate for listing, but that listing is “precluded by work on higher-priority listing actions.” The presence of other high-priority issues is further evidence of the existence of severe threats to biodiversity, not a reason to avoid action. Protecting biodiversity is the purpose of the ESA. The Biden administration must follow through with listing and protective actions.

Monarchs may be the most charismatic pollinator to fall in the age of the insect apocalypse. But unless meaningful changes are made, it will not be the last. Recent research published in Biological Conservation show that 41% of insect species are declining and 30% are endangered, with an overall rate of insect decline at 2.5% each year.

Please put monarch butterflies on the threatened and endangered species list and require protective actions by other agencies.

Thank you.

Letter to Jane Nishida, Acting Administrator, EPA

The yearly winter monarch count along the California coast was the lowest ever. In 2020, citizen scientists counted only 2,000 butterflies. The findings indicate the imminent extinction of western monarchs. Urgent action is required to protect monarchs as an endangered species!

Western monarchs migrate from the Pacific Northwest to overwintering grounds along the California coast, where they remain in relatively stationary clusters that are easy to count.  In the 1980s, roughly 10 million monarchs overwintered along the coast. By the 1990s, the number fell to 1.2 million. Five years ago, counts were at roughly 300,000. By 2019, numbers had crashed below 30,000. This year’s count saw no monarchs at well-known overwintering sites like Pacific Grove. Other locations, like Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove and National Bridges State Park, saw only a few hundred.

Decline is driven by human activity. Climate change, habitat destruction, and the use of toxic pesticides are combining to threaten the species.

A changing climate alters environmental cues that trigger monarchs to breed, migrate, and hibernate. Climate-induced extreme weather events such as wildfires, severe storms, and droughts further stress populations. Habitat destruction includes logging, the displacement of natural land by industrial development, and other damage to monarch breeding and overwintering sites.

Milkweed plants that monarchs require as larval food have been found to contain pesticides at levels that can kill them– one study found toxic pesticides in every milkweed plant tested. Herbicides, like glyphosate (Roundup), that do not kill monarchs directly kill milkweed, exacerbating habitat destruction. Each of these stressors is harmful on its own, but their combination compounds the damage.

A study published in the journal Biological Conservation in 2017 (while numbers were still ~300,000) determined that western monarchs faced a 72% chance of extinction in 20 years and an 86% chance of extinction within the next 50 years.

Eastern monarchs are also suffering. This population migrates from the U.S. East and Midwest to overwintering grounds in Mexico each year. A 2018 study by researchers at University of Florida found that this population has declined by 80% since 2005. Two years later, the 2019/2020 eastern monarch count conducted by citizen scientists found another 53% reduction. Eastern monarchs are counted by the number of acres they occupy. In 2019/20, this number was 7 acres, down from 15 acres the prior year. Scientists have determined that 15 acres is the minimum threshold necessary to prevent total migratory collapse. A report from the World Wildlife Fund estimates that at the current rate of decline, the eastern monarch migration could collapse within 20 years.

Wildlife and conservation groups urged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the monarch under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Late last December, the Trump Administration announced it was a candidate for listing, but that listing is “precluded by work on higher-priority listing actions.” The presence of so many high-priority issues is further evidence of the existence of severe threats to biodiversity, not a reason to avoid action. It is time for EPA to protect biodiversity from toxic chemical threats.

Monarchs may be the most charismatic pollinator to fall in the age of the insect apocalypse. But unless meaningful changes are made, it will not be the last. Recent research published in Biological Conservation show that 41% of insect species are declining and 30% are endangered, with an overall rate of insect decline at 2.5% each year.

Please include these threats to insect biodiversity in EPA’s pesticide registration decisions. Eliminate pesticides that endanger pollinators and their habitat.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 29, 2021) More oversight is needed to ensure farmworkers are protected from toxic pesticides, according to a report published this month by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (the federal agency that provides auditing, evaluation, and investigative services for Congress). Revisions to the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) governing farmworker safety were updated by the Obama administration in 2015, but GAO identified a number of shortfalls in EPA’s administration of the changes. GAO focused its review on the implementation of the ‘designated representative’ provision, which grants farmworkers the ability to task an individual they designate to request information on toxic pesticides from their employers. Providing farmworkers with a designated representative allows for the access of pesticide application and hazard information, so that they may take proper precautions or seek medical care. A farmworker may use this provision when they are no longer near the farm they worked on, or if there are language barriers. Without this provision, the information farmworkers receive would be at the whim of employers, and past incidents show that lack of information can lead to hazardous, abusive conditions for workers.

EPA officials, state officials, and stakeholders told GAO there was no evidence of such misuse of obtained pesticide information. GAO recommends that EPA coordinate with states to collect information on use of this process and take particular steps to clarify agency expectation about appropriate use of such pesticide information provided to designated representatives. GAO reports that “EPA agreed, in part, to both recommendations.”

EPA explains that instead of focusing on one particular provision, it focused resources on “collecting information on broader indicators for the WPS,” according to the report. Although it is encouraging that some information is being collected, GAO provided the recommendation that the agency should coordinate with states on data specifically related to the designated representative provision. “By coordinating with states, through its annual cooperative agreement work plans with states or another mechanism, to collect information on the use of the designated representative, EPA would be better positioned to determine if the designated representative provision is serving the intended purpose,” GAO indicates.

GAO also heard that industry groups are concerned about the information received by designated representatives being misused, in order to gain competitive advantage over other producers. Although this corporate paranoia was expressed to GAO, neither stakeholders, state, nor federal officials were able to point to a specific instance of the provision being misused. EPA indicated that it would expect industry groups to relay any potential problems or misuse to the agency. Nonetheless, GAO did accept that EPA guidance does not adequately explain how information obtained by a designated representative should be used. As a result, it was recommended that EPA publish clear guidance on the provision.

The protection of farmworkers from the threats of pesticide exposures has been the subject of multiple recent developments and actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the federal court for the Southern District Court of New York (SDNY), the General Accountability Office (GAO), advocacy groups, and a coalition of five states, led by the New York State Attorney General (AG). Those actions include, respectively, a finalized rollback of aspects of EPA’s pesticide Application Exclusion Zone (AEZ) rules; a temporary stay on implementation of those rule changes by SDNY; a set of recommendations from GAO (the U.S. General Accountability Office) to EPA; advocacy by Beyond Pesticides and others, including Farmworker Justice and Earthjustice; and litigation against EPA by the five-state coalition for the agency’s retrograde October 2020 rule on AEZs. Beyond Pesticides has called attention to the inadequate state of farmworker protections from pesticides, and advocated for robust regulation to ensure the health of these essential workers, including extra protections during the Covid-19 pandemic.

At the center of this flurry of activity are pesticide AEZs, or Application Exclusion Zones — essentially, buffer zones in which people (other than applicators) are prohibited during pesticide applications because of the health threats of exposures. The Obama administration made revisions, in 2015, to the larger EPA Worker Protection Standard (WPS) for farmworkers, including some expansion of such no-entry buffer zones. Those changes aimed to improve farmworker and farm family protections, including from significant off-site drift of aerially sprayed pesticides.

However, the agrochemical-industry-friendly (and regulation allergic) Trump administration changed that trajectory when, in 2019, EPA proposed, and in October 2020, finalized, a rule change on AEZs that would functionally shrink the buffer zones, thus, putting farmworkers, their families, and farm owner families (and rural residents generally) at heightened risk for exposure to toxic chemicals.

In its coverage of farmworker protections and lack thereof, Beyond Pesticides recently described these changed features of the new rules: “Chemical intensive farms would no longer be required to keep bystanders out of off-site spray areas, and pesticide applications could be restarted when an individual leaves an AEZ. Current rules require farms to keep individuals out of areas where pesticides are applied, both on and off-site, and require set safety requirements about when spraying can start and stop. The [new rules] would also change the way family members living on a farm are treated. While current rules incorporate protections for these family members, the changes would exempt immediate family members ‘from all aspects of the AEZ requirement.’ . . . Family members could remain inside while a pesticide spraying is occurring, ‘rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining inside.’ Health advocates indicate that such a proposal amounts to a dereliction of the agency’s duty to inform farmers and the general public about the inherent hazards of pesticide use, as feeling safe and being safe are critically important distinctions when it comes to chemical exposure.” The Pesticide Action Networks expresses the risks to farm families pithily: “If you’re a farm owner or family and you’re inside, you’re not protected.”

EPA’s new AEZ rules were to have gone into effect on December 29, 2020. On December 18, Farmworker Justice, Earthjustice, and other advocacy groups filed an emergency motion to prevent the new regulations from taking effect. Farmworker Justice writes, “The rule limits the AEZ to the boundaries of the agricultural establishment, even though pesticide drift often crosses property boundaries. Other adjustments to the rule allow pesticide application regardless of whether non-employees are on a property if they are subject to easement — in other words, if they have a right to be on the property. . . . These changes increase the risk of pesticide exposure for non-employees as well as nearby homes, schools, hospitals. . . . The EPA ruling willfully prioritizes the convenience of growers while endangering the health of the people who work in the fields. The new regulations do not account for the aerial drift of these pesticides that go beyond arbitrary property lines. The previous regulations must be reinstated for the safety and long-term health of farmworkers.”

The complaint itself says, “The AEZ was enacted by EPA to protect farmworkers and frontline communities from being poisoned by the drift of sprayed pesticides at the time of application. The final rule’s erosion of this protection poses an unreasonable risk of harm to human health, in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.”

On that same December day, New York AG Letitia James announced a lawsuit brought by a coalition of five states (led by New York), that include California, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota, asking that the new rule be vacated and the agency barred from implementing it. The litigation argued that “EPA violated federal law when it adopted a regulation that allows pesticide spraying to continue even if farmworkers or other persons are within the area immediately surrounding the spraying equipment, if that area is outside the farm’s boundaries.”

The states argue that this deviation from the 2015 rule — which required that there be no one (other than trained and equipped handlers or applicators) within a 100-foot buffer area of an AEZ during pesticide application, including affected areas beyond a farm’s boundaries because of the risk of pesticide drift — puts many more people at significant risk of dangerous exposures to pesticides. The suit also charges that through this rule, EPA is “ignoring its obligation to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse effects of this policy change on minority and low-income populations.”

Ms. James commented, at the time of the announcement, that pesticides are “extremely dangerous to the health of farming communities. . . . Trump’s EPA knowingly increased the risk that farmworkers, their families, and others will be exposed to these dangerous chemicals. Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, farming communities have been our front-line workers, underpinning our economy and ensuring we have enough food on our tables. To further endanger their health and safety is as unconscionable as it is illegal, and we will fight back against this latest example of the outgoing administration’s unrelenting assault on science, public health, and the law.”

Then-AG of California, Xavier Becerra, added, “The Trump Administration’s decision to undercut existing public health protections for these workers is not only reprehensible — it’s illegal. We’re going to court to prove it.” (Mr. Becerra is currently President Biden’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services.) Another participating AG, Maryland’s Brian Frosh, also weighed in: “It is EPA’s job to protect farmworkers, their families and others who are exposed to pesticides. These regulations prioritize killing bugs over protecting people.” The SDNY issued, a mere 10 days later, a temporary restraining order against EPA, prohibiting the agency from implementing the revised AEZ rules (see more, below).

Although ultimately, GAO’s recommendations could result in more transparency and better information flow, the agency’s attention to such bureaucratic minutiae, and to handholding recalcitrant farmer-owners (so that they will comply with rules about disclosing pesticides in use) pales in comparison to the larger point: EPA fails broadly to protect farmworkers adequately. GAO might do better to evaluate EPA’s poor risk assessment of specific pesticides (see this Daily News item on glyphosate), its ignoring of the science on risk (see this, on chlorpyrifos), or its outrageous March 2020 suspension of the agency’s safety enforcement program at the start of the pandemic.

These failures put agricultural workers and their families, who already endure heightened health risks from acute and chronic pesticide exposures, at ongoing risk of illness and worse. Farmworkers deserve far better protection. With an average farmworker life expectancy of roughly 56 years (compared with an average for all U.S. adults of nearly 79 years), it is morally indefensible that a federal agency should tolerate and perpetuate this level of risk. The situation for farmworkers — and the general public, ecosystems, biodiversity, and irreplaceable natural resources negatively affected by pesticide use — is made even more senseless by the reality that organic, regenerative agriculture eliminates these toxic compounds and exposures, and is a viable, profitable, and protective approach to food production.

The restraining order issued by SDNY, preventing implementation of the revised AEZ rules, now shifts the decision about whether or not to defend EPA’s industry-friendly rule to the new Biden administration. Beyond Pesticides wrote, on January 5, “While maintaining the changes agreed to under the Obama Administration would be an important start, it is evident that further safeguards are needed. A recent incident [in which more than] two dozen Texan farmworkers working in Illinois were repeatedly sprayed with toxic pesticides via aircraft, despite current rules, underscores the importance of strong enforcement to drive compliance.”

NPR (National Public Radio) and many other outlets have reported that the Biden administration is embarking on reviews of all Trump-era policies that “were harmful to public health, damaging to the environment, unsupported by the best available science, or otherwise not in the national interest.” NPR notes that the administration will specifically revisit the revised EPA rules on AEZs. 

Constant pressure and vigilance are needed to protect people, given the influence of corporate interests on federal agencies. Although industry often paints a picture that new rules, such as the designated representative provision, will harm business, this GAO report provides evidence that this is not the case. Mindful that the SDNY restraining order is temporary, Beyond Pesticides strongly encourages the Biden EPA to undo permanently this harmful rule, and generally, to be bold in fighting for systemic change, and ending corporate deception and influence on our public agencies. It is what members of the public — and farmworkers — deserve.

Sources: https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2021/01/federal-court-blocks-epa-from-weakening-farmworker-protections/ and https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2020/ag-james-sues-stop-epa-weakening-pesticide-poisoning-protections-farmworkers.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2021) Persistent organic pollutants (POPs)—including banned pesticides—present a health risk to the endangered Qinling Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca qinlingensis), the rarest subspecies of giant pandas, according to a new Chinese study published in Environmental Pollution. Organochlorine compounds (OCs), such as organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), are well-known persistent organic pollutants. They were banned by the Stockholm Convention treaty in 2001 and are primary pollutants of concern (UNEP, 2009) because of their persistence, toxicity, and adverse effects on environmental and biological health. These pollutants have a global distribution, with evaporation and precipitation facilitating long-range atmospheric transport, deposition, and bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals in the environment. The U.S. was a signatory to the treaty, but U.S. Senate never ratified it, relegating U.S. officials to observer status.

Although various studies demonstrate the volatile, toxic nature of POPs, much less research evaluates the impact POPs have on biodiversity over time. The globe is currently going through the Holocene Extinction, Earth’s 6th mass extinction, with one million species of plants and animals at risk. With the increasing rate of biodiversity loss, advocates say it is essential for government agencies to research how previous and ongoing use of POPs can impact present-day species. Likewise, collaborative, global monitoring of POPs can help leaders identify the effect on vulnerable species of the chemicals’ long-range transport and the most effective unified global strategy.

Researchers note, “We provide data for health risk assessment that can guide the identification of priority congeners [different forms of the same chemical structure] and recommend a long-term monitoring plan. This study proposes an approach to ecotoxicological threats whereby giant pandas may be used as sentinel species for other threatened or endangered mammals. By highlighting the risks of long-distance transmission of pollutants, the study emphasizes the importance of transboundary cooperation to safeguard biodiversity.”

Researchers in the study assessed organochlorine compound (OC) concentrations by analyzing the distribution of OCs from various sources within the habitat and research center of the Qinling panda. The sources include soil, bamboo, and feces that researchers examined for concentrations of 32 PCBs and 22 OCPs congeners (chemical compounds related to each other by origin, structure, or function). Some OCP compounds encompass widely banned chemicals: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and metabolites (DDTs), hexachlorocyclohexanes (HCHs), methoxychlor, mirex, HCB, and cyclodienes (cis- and trans-chlordane, isodrin, endosulfan, aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor).

This study demonstrates that Quinling Panda species are generally exposed to moderate levels of OC pollution. Higher levels of OCs are present in captive pandas relative to wild pandas. The authors identify PCB and OCP residues as coming from atmospheric transportation. At the same time, the study identifies PCBs as a cancer risk to the pandas, in fact the most notable toxicant with the highest carcinogenic risk index of PCB 126 (the most potent highly toxic industrial byproduct that incites numerous adverse physiological effects).

Long-range atmospheric transport and condensation are significant contributors to the global contamination of environmental pollutants like POPs. Most concerning are the persistent properties of POPs that allow these substances to remain in the environment long after use. Some of these long-lived chemicals include regionally banned pesticides that are all highly toxic to humans and animals: DDT, heptachlor, and lindane. These pesticides cause a range of adverse effects, from respiratory issues, nervous system disorders, and birth deformities, to various common and uncommon cancers. Although some, but not all, manufacturing and use of specific POPs have declined in the U.S., POPs remain a global issue, as much of the developing world still reports usage. Continued manufacturing and use of POPs  increase the probability of long-range transport of these chemicals and their deposition across the globe via precipitation.

Currently, POPs are present in “pristine” polar regions and remote areas seemingly void of pollution inputs. Arctic snowmelt threatens to re-release POPs entrapped in ice, further contributing to the transport of these toxic chemicals and passive pesticide exposure globally. The glacial melting caused by the climate crisis will only add to water source contamination. The release of volatile POPs will enter waterways at the same concentration levels as before ice entrapment, even after several decades. Pesticide contamination is already an issue in the United States. Results from a United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) study demonstrate that pesticides and their degradates are widespread in U.S. streams and groundwater. Furthermore, a recent study discovered the presence of DDT metabolite (DDE’) residues in black women in Chicago  who consume more glasses of tap water per day. 

Exposure concerns about POPs exposure are increasing significantly, especially for adults and children who are more vulnerable to their toxic effects. Moreover, many contaminants are subject to regulatory standards that do not fully evaluate disease implications associated with exposure associated with global transport and releases associated with the climate crisis. Advocates say that addressing the manufacturing and use of pesticides is essential to mitigate risks from chemical exposure to toxic pesticides.

Overall, a combination of long-range atmospheric transport, local climate, topography, and human activity contributes to organochlorine compound accumulation in the Qinling panda habitat. Furthermore, regions at high latitudes and near cities tend to accumulate greater concentrations of OCs than other chemicals in the same area.

Uniquely, the Qinling Panda is primarily a captive species. Past research demonstrates they experience routine exposure to OCs from their bamboo diet, due to atmospheric deposition of environmental contaminants from air pollution into soils. Study researchers suggest OCs may be accumulating in panda tissue as OC concentrations are slightly lower in giant panda feces than in bamboo. Accumulation of these toxic chemicals in tissue can have long-term, severe health consequences that remain latent for years (i.e., cancer, endocrine disruption). Scientists say it is essential to understand how long-banned chemicals impact giant pandas’ health, especially because many endangered mammals are also in captivity. Giant pandas can serve as a sentinel species for threatened/endangered mammal health regarding chemical exposure. 

Study researchers conclude, “We demonstrated that health risk assessments are important for prioritizing congeners of pollutants in Qinling… However, further studies should focus on more refined assessments of daily intake and improvements of exposure parameters. Hence, regular monitoring is needed to ensure that dangerous increases in these pollutants do not go unnoticed. In light of the long-distance transport of pollutants, our study provides an additional strand of evidence for the necessity of trans-boundary, and indeed global, actions to deliver conservation of biodiversity. [These include] such coordinated and cooperative approaches to conservation are urgent, and raise important questions as to how people can achieve the necessary cooperation.”

Lack of adequate persistent pesticide regulations highlights the need for better policies on pesticide production and use. Better pesticide policies are especially relevant when a toxic pesticide banned or highly restricted for use in the U.S. is still in production and exported to other countries.

A switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis. Organic agriculture eliminates toxic, petroleum-based pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use, builds soil health, and sequesters carbon. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that agriculture, forestry, and other land use contributes about 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. However, organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters ambient carbon in the soil. Learn about how we can sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions by switching to organic management practices by reading Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming. For more information about organic food production, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keep Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure.

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

Source: Environmental Pollution