(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2020) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted “emergency” permission to the State of Texas to allow the use of SurfaceWise®2, an unregistered pesticide, as an anti-viral surface coating. The manufacturer, Allied Bioscience, says the compound can kill coronaviruses (including SARS-CoV-2) starting at two hours post application and for up to seven days, but it is not included on EPA’s List N, of disinfectants effective against SARS-CoV-2. EPA has permitted this use via the authority of Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which allows for “emergency” use of non-registered pesticides, typically to deal with extreme threats to agricultural activities. It is rarely used for public health emergencies. Beyond Pesticides recognizes the need for protection from transmission of the novel coronavirus, and maintains that it ought to and can be done without exposing people to toxic synthetic pesticides that have not undergone evaluation for safety. See Beyond Pesticides’ guidance on effective and safe precautions against the novel coronavirus.

The Texas Department of Agriculture secured the EPA exemption, making the state the first to do so; Allied BioScience is pursuing this emergency waiver across all 50 states. The exemption grants American Airlines and two health care facilities in the state the ability to use the unregistered pesticide, which is applied by electrostatic spraying. Usually, a Section 18 exemption would be made absent other viable alternatives to address the problem and when there are at least minimal health and environmental safety data available for the compound; neither is the case for SurfaceWise®2.

This one-year use allowance of the product would appear to be a specific exemption more than a response to a public health “emergency.” From the EPA website: “Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizes EPA to exempt state and federal agencies from certain provisions of FIFRA and allow unregistered uses of pesticides to address emergency conditions. Under such an exemption, EPA allows limited use of a pesticide in defined geographic areas for a finite time, once EPA confirms that the situation meets that statutory definition of ‘emergency condition.’ Section 18 emergency exemptions must be requested by a state or federal agency. Section 18 emergency exemptions are routinely granted for use in agricultural settings involving invasive pest outbreaks, though rarely for public health emergencies.”

EPA’s news release on the exemption says: “SurfaceWise2 is meant to inactivate viruses that land on a surface between regular cleanings. This product is not a replacement for routine cleaning and disinfection with products from EPA’s List N.” In the COVID-19 pandemic, EPA has created its “List N” — disinfectants that meet agency criteria for efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) and other coronavirus illnesses, but which are not necessarily evaluated for safety. There are hundreds of compounds listed on List N, which begs the question: what is the “emergency need” for SurfaceWise®2?

Allied BioScience touts the compound as “non-toxic, non-irritating, odorless and contain[ing] no chemicals that produce harmful vapors or gases.” Yet, on EPA’s List N are a legion of products with active ingredients known as quaternary ammonium compounds or “quats,” about which there are toxicity concerns. In fact, roughly half of the List N products contain a quat as the single active ingredient. An active ingredient in SurfaceWise®2 is a quaternary ammonium.

Quats are organic, ionic chemical agents with properties of both surfactants and disinfectants; they have been used in disinfectant products for many years. However, especially over the course of the past decade or so, quats have been linked to a range of human health harms, including increased risks of asthma and allergic response; mutagenicity (e.g., some quats have been shown to damage DNA in human lymphocytes at much lower levels than are present in cleaning chemicals); contact dermatitis and other skin irritation; lowered fertility; and potential and significant disruption of key cellular processes (see more below). The National Institutes of Health designates quaternary ammonium as “asthma-causing and irritable to eyes and skin, flammable and corrosive, harmful to aquatic ecosystems, and persistent in the environment.”

There are also concerns about some quats’ ability to catalyze antibiotic resistance, and impacts on the human respiratory system — of particular concern in the era of COVID-19, which in many people damages lung tissue and compromises oxygen delivery to the body’s cells. The use of quats, which have been on the market since the early 20th century (before EPA began regulating potentially harmful chemicals) should be less facile — particularly during a massive public health pandemic.

University of California, Davis toxicologist Gino Cortopassi, PhD has studied causes of mitochondrial dysfunction for the past decade. Mitochondria are the “power plants” of cells, transforming food into the chemical energy needed for cellular biochemical processes — cellular respiration, or use of oxygen delivered by circulation, being a primary one. Cells use ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to store the energy that mitochondria produce. Dr. Cortopassi’s research has found that quats compromise both mitochondrial consumption of oxygen and the creation and storage of ATP. This finding should be a red alert for the use of quat compounds during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As Beyond Pesticides wrote in August 2020, “Individuals and government officials, alike, should observe all chemical ingredients on the disinfectant and sanitizer product labels and look at the use instructions to ensure that the method of use is safe. . . . Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers disinfectants as pesticides designed for use on hard surfaces, but not bare skin like sanitizers. It is essential that when EPA weighs risks and benefits of pesticide use, it does not allow harm to those disproportionally impacted by these chemicals like farm/landscape workers and people of color, who may suffer elevated exposure to the virus as essential workers. An evaluation of the contribution of pesticide use and exposure to health outcomes of COVID-19 is urgently needed.” For the facts on meeting health protection needs for disinfection, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers.

Another, earlier iteration of this product, SurfaceWise, is registered as an anti-microbial surface coating, but SurfaceWise®2 is not currently on List N and has not been evaluated by EPA. The manufacturer has not submitted the necessary data to qualify for registration under FIFRA, but EPA notes: “Over the coming months, Allied BioScience will pursue a non-emergency approval under FIFRA Section 3 by submitting additional data to meet EPA’s registration requirements as an antiviral surface coating. If the full registration process is completed, the product would become available for purchase by members of the public.” This would potentially open the door to people using SurfaceWise®2 in their homes, subjecting themselves and their families to chronic and repeated exposures to a product that could make them more vulnerable were they to contract the novel coronavirus.

EPA’s August 24 news release goes on, essentially, to invite more entities to apply for “emergency use” exemptions under Section 18. The news release mentions efficacy, but nowhere is there a word about safety: “EPA anticipates posting information for companies or individuals who are interested in pursuing a FIFRA Section 3 registration for antiviral surface coatings in the coming weeks. In the interim, states or federal agencies interested in pursuing a Section 18 Emergency Exemption Request for products that claim residual efficacy against viruses for up to seven days should be prepared to include efficacy data demonstrating that the product is durable and effective against viruses in their applications. Durability and efficacy should both be evaluated. For example, antiviral efficacy should be assessed using coated surfaces that have been exposed to physical touches/abrasion and treatment with disinfectants. EPA will review the results of these studies to ensure that surface coatings remain effective under the anticipated proposed conditions of use.”

As the public and many, many businesses struggle to find ways to resume economic and other kinds of “normal” activities, there have been pushes both to resume potentially risky activities and to make some of those activities safer — or at least to make them seem safer. American Airlines’ wish to deploy SurfaceWise®2 on its cabin surfaces can be seen as both. Airlines are facing economic hits from generally reduced air travel during the pandemic, and backlash due to images of airlines packing planes full. Many potential travelers, concerned about transmission of the novel coronavirus during flights, have opted not to fly. Yes, SurfaceWise®2 kills the virus. But this “emergency” exemption appears to some extent to be a solution in search of a problem.

In the initial stages of the pandemic, there was much concern about transmission via “fomites” — materials or objects that can transmit infection. Since then, nearly all of the emerging science has indicated that surfaces are very rarely responsible for transmission of the virus. The novel coronavirus is far more commonly transmitted via close personal contact when an infected person coughs, breathes, or speaks, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), than via contaminated surfaces.

Catching the virus while touching a surface would be “quite rare” but not “impossible,” according to The Atlantic magazine. Donald Schaffner, PhD, a food-microbiology professor who studies disease contamination at Rutgers University, told the magazine, “You had clear airborne transmission with many, many opportunities for mass fomite transmission in the same place. But we just didn’t see it. In the entire peer-reviewed covid-19 literature, I’ve found maybe one truly plausible report, in Singapore, of fomite transmission. And even there, it is not a slam-dunk case.”

It is worth noting that one of the touted features of SurfaceWise®2 — its seven-day efficacy — also means that human exposures to it may not be brief or incidental, but could, in the case of a cross-country flight, for example, result in exposure of five or six hours’ duration. Airline workers would also experience chronic exposures to the chemical, which Allied BioScience says “won’t wipe off with repeated cleaning — even with harsh or abrasive chemicals.” As The Washington Post reports, “Health and chemical experts say the cleanser [SurfaceWise®2] might actually harm passengers and flight attendants and do little to protect against the virus, which is mainly transmitted through the air in closed spaces.”

A senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Jennifer Sass, PhD, comments, “‘It would be great if this was a miracle solution, but it’s not. There’s plenty of risk here and too much we don’t know about how this chemical could actually harm people.’” The WaPo article continues: “[Dr.] Sass said the company’s ‘Material Safety Data Sheet,’ which lists the common hazards of a product, acknowledged concern about prolonged skin and eye contact, both possible in environments such as the cabins of aircraft. The data sheet also does not list tests for chronic or long-term effects, she added. ‘Although acute toxicity seems to be very low, many people will be exposed to it on a daily basis,’ including airline workers.”

Claudia S. Miller, MD, MS, an immunologist, allergist, and professor emeritus at the University of Texas, asserts in the WaPo article: “‘People most vulnerable to the novel coronavirus — those with asthma, chemical intolerances or certain allergies — may have greater irritation from exposure to the disinfectant. . . . I’m very concerned when we’re using chemicals that may affect the more sensitive subset of the population. I don’t like the idea of exposing people to disinfectants on top of this risk of having a virus infect their lungs.’”

Dr. Miller also points out that, “When the coating is sprayed, it emits vapors that could be hazardous, creating risks especially for the workers who apply it. In a contained environment such as an airplane, those vapors could linger without ventilation.” Further, the product’s proposed label instructs those applying the chemical to use personal protective equipment, and to wear long pants, shoes, and socks, and American Airlines will provide to applicators gloves that are resistant to chemicals, as well as approved N95 or KN95 respirators. If the product is safe, why all these precautions? It is notable that neither the original SurfaceWise® nor this newer SurfaceWise®2 shows up in the database of EPA’s Safer Choice / Design for the Environment program, which purports to help “consumers, businesses, and purchasers find products that perform and contain ingredients that are safer for human health and the environment.”

American Airlines is pleased with the emergency exemption, which allows it to advertise that the company is “taking bold measures and using the latest products and technology to help ensure our customers’ well-being when they travel with us. . . . We look forward to also seeing SurfaceWise2 used in offices, schools, gymnasiums and other high-traffic areas to support the nation in safely reopening.” It intends to use SurfaceWise®2 on interior aircraft surfaces, and plans to use the product throughout its fleet, including those in its American Eagle regional partners.

Beyond Pesticides believes that this EPA emergency use exemption, and any that might follow in response to applications from other localities for use of SurfaceWise®2, should be subject to the public comment process required by FIFRA. Federal regulations (§166.24: Public notice of receipt of application and opportunity for public comment) require that, “The Administrator shall issue a notice of receipt in the Federal Register for a specific, quarantine, or public health exemption and request public comment when any one of the following criteria is met:” — which list of criteria includes “a complete application for registration of that use and/or a petition for tolerance for residues in or on the commodity has not been submitted to the Agency.”

That said, because SurfaceWise®2 contains the active ingredient 1-octadecanaminium,N,N-dimethyl-N[3-(trihydroxysilyl)propyl],chloride, which has been used in other registered compounds, EPA might not consider it a new active ingredient — in which case, the agency might argue the public notice and comment requirements does not apply. However, even new uses of active ingredients already registered by EPA must, by law, be subject to review because of new exposure patterns and an assessment of cumulative risk.

Way back in 2002, Beyond Pesticides wrote about this “emergency” loophole in the regulation of toxic pesticides, saying: “Section 18 emergency exemptions provide a loophole by which pesticides are used without the scrutiny provided in the registration process. Through declarations of emergencies and crises, states allow use of pesticides which for several reasons (including lack of a sustainable market due to rapid development of resistance, data gaps, or EPA’s concern about certain risks) cannot be registered for additional uses. EPA has said that pesticides with data gaps will not be allowed to expand their use patterns, but this restriction does not apply to emergency exemptions and special local needs registration.”

Everyone feels beleaguered by this pandemic and its outfalls, and wishes life could return to something nearer “normal.” Yet people’s understandable yearnings for “normal” ought not be exploited by industry or government, particularly to introduce “fixes” that may actually mitigate against human health and well-being. With this emergency exemption, EPA and industry are conducting a dangerous kind of legerdemain: distracting from scientifically supported transmission scenarios with a “solution” for one that barely exists — the vanishingly small possibility that COVID-19 could be spread by contact with contaminated surfaces. Tragically, EPA is doing exactly this and allowing unnecessary exposures to a toxic pesticide in the process.

Beyond Pesticides maintains that during public health emergencies involving infectious diseases, such as the current coronavirus pandemic, it is critical to scrutinize practices and products very carefully so that risks presented by the crisis are not exacerbated by unnecessary threats from toxic products promoted as protective. Again, consult Beyond Pesticides fact sheet on safe protections.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/08/25/american-will-be-first-airline-use-coating-that-kills-coronavirus-up-seven-days/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/trump-epa-approves-first-ever-long-lasting-antiviral-product-use-against-covid-19, and

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/08/26/epa-coronavirus-cleaner/

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

(Beyond Pesticide, August 27, 2020) The latest research finds that pesticides and fertilizers supersede fossil fuels as the greatest contributor of sulfur emissions in the environment, according to U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded study, published in Nature Geoscience. Particularly, atmospheric sulfur dioxide and reactive sulfur emissions contribute to sulfur deposition via acidic rain and snow, causing a multitude of human and animal of health problems and environmental degradation. Although some U.S. policy regulations curb sulfur emissions from atmospheric sources, alternative sulfur inputs from agricultural sources can cause similar issues as atmospheric sulfur emissions, including acid rain. With peak sulfur concentrations from agricultural outputs up to ten-fold higher than previous 20th-century sulfur levels, studies like these are significant in understanding how underrepresented pollution sources may contribute to overall environmental pollution. Lead author of the study, Eve-Lyn Hinckley, Ph.D., states, “We have an imperative to understand the impact that we’re having on the environment. And then we need to work together towards solutions to mitigate those effects.”

Sulfur is a naturally occurring element found in vast, underground deposits. Although relatively stable underground, it is highly reactive once it reaches the surface, transforming into chemical compounds, like sulfur oxides, upon exposure to oxygen. Over the last century, the extraction and burning of sulfur in fossil fuels, which releases sulfur into the atmosphere, have had unintended, unnatural effects on the environment, including perturbing (disturbing) the sulfur cycle. Fossil fuel power plants (i.e., coal, petroleum, natural gas) contributed to the largest source of reactive sulfur in the atmosphere in the 1960s and 70s, leading to acid rain and ensuing forest and aquatic ecosystems degradation across America. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollution and reduce sulfur levels from atmospheric sources to pre-industrial levels. However, the sulfur cycle perturbation remains high even after the regulating atmospheric sulfur emission as sulfur’s use for crop health and production in agriculture is widespread.

Most research evaluating excess nutrient use in agriculture focuses on nitrogen and phosphorus, which contribute to a plethora of environmental issues, such as greenhouse gas emissions and algal blooms from nutrient runoff. However, there is scant research on the impact of excess sulfur use in agriculture, the risks associated with increased sulfur levels in soil, and how excess sulfur can dampen the natural sulfur cycle. Philip C. Bennett, PhD, program director in NSF’s Division of Earth Sciences, research results,”…illustrate the intertwined nature of natural and human-driven biogeochemical cycles, and reveals new implications of sulfur in our environment, including effects on nutrient availability and runoff, food production and toxic metals.”

To evaluate the impact sulfur emissions have on the sulfur cycle, researchers investigated sulfur concentration across three important U.S. croplands and adjacent water sources: Midwest corn and soy fields, Western California wineries, and Southeast Florida sugar cane fields. Each crop region has varying histories of sulfur deposition, crop treatment, and application, which “highlight many of the same environmental issues and unknowns that persist in intensive crop systems globally.” Additionally, researchers used the Wild River watershed as a reference point to compare sulfur fluxes among each water source. 

According to this paper, each U.S. cropland shows high levels of retained reactive sulfur, with pesticides and fertilizers being the main contributor to environmental sulfur cycle perturbation in croplands. The concentration of sulfur in each cropland region significantly surpasses peak levels of sulfur deposition from past acid rain events. Additionally, areas historically impacted by acid rain, such as the Wild River and waterways adjacent to croplands, have high levels of retained reactive sulfur. This retention is because waterways, such as rivers, were sinks for sulfur, accumulating concentrations of reactive sulfur from acid rain due to its insolubility in water. However, improved air quality regulations and the subsequent decrease in acidic rain events caused reactive sulfur concentration to remain higher in waterways than the surrounding land. Thus, waterways transformed from sulfur sinks to sulfur sources, transporting the element from sulfur-rich water sources to sulfur-limited ecosystems.

Sulfur is an essential nutrient for all organisms, critical for nitrogen uptake by plants and pH balance in the soil, with many crops (i.e., canola, grapes, sugar beets) having a range of sulfur requirements. The use of sulfur as a pesticide or fertilizer is widespread in chemical-intensive and organic farming. Synthetic fertilizers made from fossil fuels are prohibited in organic production, however sulfur as pesticide is permitted as an allowed synthetic input. Although sulfur has the least-toxic effect on human and animal health compared to conventional agrochemicals, manufacturing pesticides or fertilizers using sulfur can still emit harmful sulfur compounds.

Ninety percent of mined sulfur becomes sulfuric acid for agrochemicals like fertilizers. However, when chemical companies roast mined sulfur to convert it to sulfuric acid, they create sulfur dioxide in the process.Sulfur dioxide pollution signifies serious problems in air quality regulations. As a result, EPA is currently facing a lawsuit by environmental groups for failing to enforce air pollution regulations in eight states by allowing local chemical companies to emit dangerous levels of sulfur dioxide. Moreover, EPA-approved, outdated air quality regulations undermine the risk associated with fine-particulate exposure, especially for communities of color. Exposure to sulfur dioxide can cause a variety of health issues, contributing to respiratory disorders like asthma, and lung diseases, especially in children and the elderly. Furthermore, sulfur dioxide pollution is detrimental to environmental health, damaging terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, alike, via acid rain and haze. In addition to sulfur dioxide from pesticide manufacturing, pesticides themselves contribute air pollution as a French study finds the presence of at least thirty-two toxic pesticides, including banned, carcinogen lindane. With a multitude of studies linking poor air quality to the exacerbation of diseases like COVID-19, new or pre-existing health conditions like heart disease, or respiratory illnesses, and even premature death, advocates and scientists say it is vital that government agencies better regulate all sources of harmful emissions to protect human health.  

According to this research, the use of sulfur-based fertilizers and pesticides has a direct relation to an increase in sulfur concentration for the three croplands. Additionally, areas recovering from past acidic rain evens are seeing an increase in sulfuric concentration. Although air quality regulations decrease the atmospheric deposition of sulfur from fossil fuel mediated acid rain, farmers are now searching for direct sulfur inputs from fertilizers and pesticides that they no longer receive from acid rain. However, there is a lack of information on the impact of direct, point-source applications of sulfur into our environment from non-natural sources. As the demand for food increases with the need for more pest preventative measures, it is essential to understand the possible consequences of unregulated chemical use. Additionally, global warming implications associated with the climate crisis can alter chemical states of reactive elements like sulfur. 

Because sulfur use lacks strict monitoring and has strong leaching potential, it can have localized and downstream impacts on ecosystem function (soil degradation), regular chemical cycling (sulfide abundance and methylmercury production), and human health. The long-term effect of elemental sulfur on soil quality suggests a decrease in soil health from sporadic acidification of soils. Additionally, the residence time of sulfur can differ immensely depending on soil type and water availability. California wineries often have higher concentrations of sulfur in soils not only due to the extensive use to combat powdery mildew but because droughts prevent sulfur from leaching elsewhere, resulting in soil acidification. However, leaching can result in unintended chemical transformations of sulfur. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, extensive applications of sulfur to Florida sugar cane fields produced methylmercury—a potent, bioaccumulating, neurotoxin—upon leaching into the Everglades. Additional concerns surrounding exposure from pesticide drift and related health effects showcase the need for better long-term documentation of sulfur exposure, especially in agriculturally adjacent communities. Unfortunately, researchers expect sulfur levels to continue to increase globally in many croplands, with countries like China and India still working to regulate fossil fuel emissions. However, researchers in the paper recommend, “greatly expanded monitoring of sulfur and examination of possible negative impacts of this increase, which include rising levels of mercury in wetlands, soil degradation and a higher risk of asthma for populations in agricultural areas.”

Sulfur is one of the least-toxic alternatives to fungicides, yet excessive use from pesticide and fertilizer applications can have severe consequences for human, animal, and environmental health. Sulfur poses a significant threat to farmworkers, causing the most agriculture-related acute illnesses in California between 1998 and 2000. Additionally, pesticide drift is an omnipresent issue impacting communities surrounding farming operations, and sulfur drift from dust may harm humans, plants, and aquatic systems. Also, the manufacturing of fertilizers and pesticides containing sulfur is associated with sulfur dioxide pollution and its subsequent negative health impacts. Although sulfur use is prevalent in organic agriculture as a pesticide, a complete switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis by eliminating synthetic fertilizer and toxic pesticide use. Furthermore, supporting the use of alternative practices such as polyculture rather than monoculture, mulching around the base of the plant, animal integration, and other organic practices can assist in eliminating the need for pesticides and the likelihood of pesticide drift. 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(s): U.S. National Science Foundation, Nature Geoscience

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2020) Neonicotinoid insecticides damage the health of shrimp and oysters, according to two (1, 2) new studies published by Australian researchers. Although this class of chemicals is best known for its hazardous impacts on pollinator populations, it is becoming increasingly clear that the entire food chain is at risk from continued neonicotinoid use. This study builds on an already established body of literature showing these systemic chemicals poison waterways.

Researchers began by collecting samples of shrimp and oysters from growers along the coast, and acclimating the species to laboratory conditions. Both collections were separated into different test groups. Oysters where exposed in their tanks to various concentrations of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. Shrimp were exposed to imidacloprid through two methods: in their feed, and in their tanks. Each separate test group was further separated into high and low exposures. A control group that did not receive any pesticide exposure was also established in each experiment.

For the oyster populations, scientists found a range of negative effects. Imidacloprid inhibits the proper functioning of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, a well-known impact of many pesticides that results in damage to the nervous system. Detoxification mechanisms are activated, and changes are observed in hemocyte counts of oysters exposed to environmentally relevant levels of imidacloprid, indicating damage to immune system functioning.

Regardless of the route of exposure, shrimp are found to bioconcentrate imidacloprid in their bodies at levels up to 350 parts per billion within a period of four days. Changes are also seen to the nutritional composition of the species, as exposed shrimp decrease in weight and fat content. “This laboratory-based study indicates that cultured and wild prawns could be impacted in areas affected by high levels of neonicotinoid pesticide run-off,” said lead author Peter Butcherine in a press release.

The damage imidacloprid causes to shrimp populations is well known. In Washington state during the latter part of the last decade, officials, advocates, and growers became embroiled in a long battle over the safety of spraying imidacloprid to control a small species of native burrowing shrimp to protect oyster populations. After years of dispute, the state Department of Ecology prohibited the use of imidacloprid and established a working group to develop alternative management practices. As the present study shows, while the spray may have killed the native shrimp, it also would likely have long-lasting effects on oyster populations in the region.

“These two studies indicate both crustaceans and molluscs are vulnerable to insecticides, weakening their immune system and leaving them susceptible to disease,” said study co-author Kirsten Benkendorff, PhD.

In 2017, Beyond Pesticides published in its journal the piece Poison Waterways, which highlights widespread contamination of United States surface water with neonicotinoids, and the damage these insecticides are causing as a result. Subsequent research has found that these chemicals are a year-round presence in critically important water bodies like the Great Lakes. The hazards that neonicotinoids pose to aquatic life are so potent that it, not harm to pollinators, became the driving reason for Canada’s phasing out of their use.

Neonicotinoids are long-lived, systemic pesticides that make their way into the vascular system of plants and cannot be washed off. A 2017 assessment by an international group of researchers published a peer-reviewed conclusion finding that these neonicotinoids can cause harm to nearly every taxonomic group of animals. In addition to insects, pollinators and aquatic species, declines in bird species implicates neonicotinoids, mammals like deer display decreased body weight and certain malformations after exposure, and amphibians delay metamorphosis from environmentally relevant levels.

Human health is not spared from the ill effects of these pesticides. In addition to current findings that the insecticides decrease the nutritional benefit of certain species, research published last year links neonicotinoid exposure to breast cancer. In its decision to ban neonicotinoids, the European Union noted the potential of these pesticides to contaminate drinking water sources, and cause neurotoxicity, reproductive changes, and kidney and liver damage.  

The results of this study and the broad body of science available on neonicotinoids shows that passing the Saving America’s Pollinators Act is about more than saving pollinators. Eliminating these insecticides and moving toward safer, organic practices will not only protect pollinators, but the entire web of life on which human society depends. Learn more about the dangers pesticides pose to wildlife on Beyond Pesticides’ Wildlife page. Take action and tell your elected officials to sponsor the HR1337, the Saving America’s Pollinators Act through this link.

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

Source: Southern Cross University Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2020) The City of Gaithersburg, MD has chosen to opt-in to Montgomery County’s Healthy Lawns Act, restricting toxic pesticide use on public and private property. According to the local Patch, the mayor and City Council voted to adopt the law in mid-August, and it will take effect for all residents and businesses in city on December 1. Although Montgomery County passed the Healthy Lawns Act approximately five years ago, incorporated cities within the county are required to proactively opt-in to the law for it to apply within their jurisdiction.

Gaithersburg is the latest, and largest city to opt-in to the county’s law, which encourages organic practices by limiting pesticide use on lawns and landscapes to products that are certified organic or considered minimum risk by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In mid-June, the Town of Garrett Park also opted in to the law, according to reports. Advocates are advocating that all cities within Montgomery County adopt the law.

The same group of grassroots advocates that pushed Montgomery County leaders to adopt its Healthy Lawns Act years ago is also leading the push for opt-ins. Safe Grow Montgomery, a group of concerned mothers and fathers working for a safer environment for themselves and their families, has shown county, state, and national leaders what can be accomplished with hard work and persistence. Rather than step back after passing an historic pesticide policy, advocates at Safe Grow Montgomery have continued to engage with local leaders to ensure proper implementation of the law and defend against ongoing attacks.

“The fact that Gaithersburg has opted in unanimously to Healthy Lawns Act makes me so very happy,” said Alex Stavitsky-Zeineddin of Safe Grow Montgomery. “I personally have spent 10 years educating and advocating about the health concerns due to exposure to pesticides used in lawn care here in Gaithersburg, and Montgomery County, MD. Thank you to all the councilmembers, both in Montgomery County and locally here in Gaithersburg that understand how important it is to protect the health of their constituents by enacting laws such as Healthy Lawns Act.”

In addition to local opt-ins, other Maryland counties and large cities are looking closely at the approach established by Montgomery County and considering their own healthy lawn care ordinances. Prince George’s County, MD is considering Ordinance CB-08-2020, which tracks closely Montgomery County’s law. The City of Baltimore, MD is considering Ordinance 20-0495, also follows Montgomery County’s law, but includes additional restrictions on the hazardous well-known neonicotinoid pesticides, glyphosate, and chlorpyrifos.

This flurry of local activity is the result of the dust finally settling on the legality of Montgomery County’s approach to pesticide regulation. For five years since the initial passage of the Healthy Lawns Act in 2015, aspects of Montgomery County’s law applying to private property were held in the courts due to a legal challenge by the pesticide industry. The suit, led by TruGreen and the pesticide industry front group Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, alleged that local jurisdictions in the state of Maryland were implicitly preempted from enacting a law stricter than state pesticide law. Despite a history of state lawmakers rejecting the preemption of local communities over pesticide use, the industry argued that the state filled the void and that there was no room for additional local protections aimed at safeguarding public health and the environment.

A 2017 ruling for an elected state District Court Judge struck down the law, dealing a significant setback. But the County Council quickly appealed the decision, noting that it had received hundreds of letters in support of lawmakers appealing the decision. Beyond Pesticides joined with Safe Grow Montgomery and several other state and national groups to file an Amicus brief defending the right of Montgomery County and other local jurisdictions in Maryland to enact laws that protect their unique local environments from toxic pesticides.   

After another two years of court proceedings, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed the District Court decision and granted Montgomery County the right to restrict pesticides on all property in its jurisdiction. The industry appealed the decision but was met with a swift dismissal from the state’s highest court (the Maryland Court of Appeals). With the court case now settled, communities in the state that had long wished to address toxic pesticide use affecting their resident’s health or poisoning local wildlife, are now empowered to do so.

Advocates in Maryland are strongly encouraged to engage with their local leaders to pass a strong pesticide policy. Beyond Pesticides has supported the efforts in Gaithersburg, Baltimore, and Prince George’s County through expert testimony and comments (1,2,3). For those outside of Maryland, even if you’re in a state with explicit preemption, you can still pass meaningful laws that fight back against unnecessary pesticide use. To get started, see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawn and Landscape Tools for Change.

Communities across the U.S. are considering healthy lawn care policies. Beyond Pesticides’ Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies lists over 150 communities in 23 states that restrict chemical pesticide use. Take the pledge to make your community the next on the map!

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

Source: Gaithersburg Patch

(Beyond Pesticides, August 24, 2020) USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) announced on August 10 that it will be reducing reimbursement rates for the organic certification cost share program, which provides reimbursements to organic farms and handling operations. The August 10 Federal Register notice stated that FSA is “revising the reimbursement amount to 50 percent of the certified organic operation’s eligible expenses, up to a maximum of $500 per scope.” The 2018 Farm Bill clearly set reimbursement rates at 75% of the certified organic operation’s eligible expenses, up to a maximum of $750 per regulated activity. This change hurts the transition to organic production at a time when it is crucial that the organic sector grows—eliminating petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers that are contributing to devastating pollution, the climate crisis, and biodiversity decline.

This action by USDA is unwarranted and completely unacceptable. The 2018 Farm Bill provided new funding for the program and also directed USDA to use the program’s carryover balances from previous years to fund the program for fiscal years 2019 through 2023. Given these sources of funding, there should be plenty of funds available for the program’s operation in fiscal year 2020. Either USDA’s accounting for this program is flawed or the agency has decided to disregard the Congressional funding directives in the 2018 Farm Bill. In addition, the FSA has done a huge disservice to the organic community in this time of crisis by delaying the release of funds by many months while organic operations struggle to stay in business as they weather a pandemic and loss of markets. Organic, direct market, and diversified operations have largely been excluded from existing USDA pandemic relief programs, including the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, while the top 1% of recipients got more than 20% of the money, totaling $1.2 billion.

Organic operations should apply for certification cost-share assistance as soon as they are able to do so with their state agency or local FSA office. Operations have until October 31, 2020 to apply for funding. FSA has stated that “if additional funding is authorized at a later time, FSA may provide additional assistance to certified operations that have applied” for the organic certification cost share program.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Congress to restore organic funding taken away by USDA.

Letter to Congress

I am writing to express my outrage that USDA’s Farm Service Agency has chosen to reduce support for the organic certification cost share program in the midst of a pandemic. The organic certification cost share program provides organic farmers and handling operations with modest reimbursement of up to $750 to cover a portion of their annual certification fees. This decision was announced via an August 10 Federal Register notice that stated FSA is “revising the reimbursement amount to 50 percent of the certified organic operation’s eligible expenses, up to a maximum of $500 per scope.”

This unilateral action by USDA is unwarranted and completely unacceptable and disregards the Congressional funding directives in the 2018 Farm Bill. The 2018 Farm Bill clearly set reimbursement rates at 75% of the certified organic operation’s eligible expenses, up to a maximum of $750 per scope.

In addition, the FSA has done a huge disservice to the organic community in this time of crisis by delaying the release of funds by many months while organic operations struggle to stay in business as they weather a pandemic and loss of markets. Organic, direct market, and diversified operations have largely been excluded from existing USDA pandemic relief programs, including the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, while the top 1% of recipients got more than 20% of the money, totaling $1.2 billion.

If the USDA wants organic farms and our regional economies to survive and thrive, it should be helping organic operations during the pandemic. Producers and other organic operations need this support now more than ever because they are faced with loss of markets due to COVID-19 and increasing costs as they modify their operations to keep workers and customers safe and implement new sanitation and staffing procedures.

I urge you to communicate with FSA to ensure that the full organic certification cost share reimbursement is reinstated. In addition, given USDA’s delay in announcing the funding availability, I urge you to extend the deadlines for state agencies to apply to administer the program, and for organic operations to apply for the assistance.

Please sign onto the letter from Representatives Plaskett, Davis, Brindisi, and Newhouse urging USDA to reinstate the maximum reimbursement rate for the organic certification cost share program, as well as extend all applicable program deadlines to ensure that farmers who are still dealing with COVID-19 impacts have ample time to access these funds.

To sign onto the letter, you can contact Tiana Thomas in Rep. Plaskett’s office ([email protected]), Robert Dougherty in Rep. Brindisi’s office ([email protected]), Janie Costa in Rep. Rodney Davis’ office ([email protected]), or Travis Martinez in Rep. Newhouse’s office ([email protected]). The letter will close at COB on Monday, August 24.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2020) A foundational study of the toxic insecticide chlorpyrifos left critical data out of its analysis, resulting in decades of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “safe exposure limit” that is flat out wrong, new research says. That 1972 study concluded that the amount of the chemical to which a human could be exposed before adverse effects showed up (the “no observed adverse effect level,” or NOAEL) was more than twice as high as should have been determined had the study not ignored critical data. In addition, the study points to the perennial “fox and hen house” issues at EPA, which include using research commissioned, funded, or even conducted by industry as any basis for regulation. For years, Beyond Pesticides has rung the alarm on this very dangerous pesticide, and advocated for its ban nationwide.

News of this omission from the 1972 “Coulston Study” comes from a team out of the University of Washington. The researchers re-analyzed that human intentional dosing study using both the original statistical methods and modern computational tools that did not exist in the 1970s. (An important side note: such a study is unethical by current research standards.) The new analysis finds two significant flaws: (1) the study design made it less able to identify a treatment effect (an impact of the study subjects’ intentional exposure to chlorpyrifos), and (2) the researchers’ omission of valid and important data obscured a treatment effect that would otherwise have been identified.

In the study paper, the co-authors say plainly, “The Coulston Study misled regulators by omitting valid data for the key treatment group . . . resulting in a finding of no effect. Our updated analysis indicates that even the lowest dose was unlikely to be a NOAEL. A proper analysis of the Coulston Study would have lowered or eliminated the NOAEL. Either action would have reduced the acceptable dose for chlorpyrifos, and may well have led to more restrictions on its use, particularly in scenarios where infants and children were exposed. . . . An earlier reduction in the NOAEL and increased exposure mitigation would have likely reduced the incidence of adverse health effects in children of that era. It is tragic that an omission of valid data from the analysis of the Coulston Study may have adversely impacted public health for at least 15 years.”

Put simply: the “acceptable” chlorpyrifos exposure level established by EPA, on the basis of the 1972 research, was much higher than it should have been, and likely led to many, many dangerous exposures for children, in particular. Lead author Lianne Sheppard, PhD, commented, “This has huge public health implications. This study was the basis of policy for over 15 years and because it concluded that the ‘no observed adverse effect level’ was more than twice as high as it should have been, the standard was a lot less protective than it should have been.”

Chlorpyrifos is a widely deployed and much criticized organophosphate insecticide that has been used on agricultural crops, for turf management, to treat non-structural wood products, and for control of roaches, ants, and adult mosquitoes. Developed as an agricultural pesticide, its use expanded from the 1970s through the 1990s, including approvals for in-home applications. The compound is a central and peripheral nervous system poison and is clearly dangerous. It damages the brains of young children, causing impairment to cognitive function, lower IQs, attention deficit disorder, developmental delays, and other learning and developmental disorders. It can cause damage to human reproductive, endocrine, renal, hepatic, and immune function. Chronic exposure has been linked to the development of lung cancer. In addition, chlorpyrifos is toxic to birds, fish, aquatic organisms, and bees.

In areas where it is used, chlorpyrifos can contaminate indoor air, surface water, and food crops (most commonly, almonds, cotton, citrus, grapes, corn, broccoli, sugar beets, peaches, nectarines, soybeans, Brussels sprouts, cranberries, alfalfa, peanuts, sunflowers, and tree nuts). Farmworkers and their families, as well as pregnant women in such agricultural areas, are at particular risk for damage from the chemical and its drift.

EPA has been sued repeatedly for its allowance of chlorpyrifos use, and has employed epic levels of foot dragging in responding to petitioners and to court orders. Highlights of the litigation and regulatory landscape include many fits and starts over the past two decades. Chlorpyrifos was first registered as an insecticide in 1965. After wide allowances for use during the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s, EPA banned household uses of the compound (except for ant and roach baits) in 2000. Two years later, the agency reduced allowable application frequencies for a number of food crops. A decade after that, EPA created “buffer zones” around agricultural fields close to “sensitive” sites, such as schools, playing fields, parks, public sidewalks, residences, hospitals, and nursing homes.

In 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA to respond to a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America to ban all uses of chlorpyrifos. Following that, EPA proposed to revoke all food tolerances for the compound. In March of 2017, the newly installed Trump administration’s EPA contravened the conclusions of its own scientists, as well as those of independent researchers, by reversing that 2015 decision to revoke food residue tolerances because of the chemical’s neurotoxic impacts. In a suit brought by a coalition of labor and health organizations represented by EarthJustice, in 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA to finalize its ban on chlorpyrifos. In April 2019, the Ninth Circuit gave EPA 90 days to justify a decision to allow chlorpyrifos to remain on the market. In July of that year, EPA announced it would allow continued use of the toxic pesticide.

Absent protective action by EPA, some states have acted on this toxic threat. Hawaii became the first state to ban chlorpyrifos in 2018. In 2019, six states (California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont) sued EPA, arguing that chlorpyrifos should be banned because of the dangers of its use to people’s health. Also in 2019, the New York State legislature voted to phase out and eventually ban use of the neurotoxic insecticide. Maryland passed a limited ban in 2020.

In February of 2020, Corteva AgriScience (formerly DowDuPont), the largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos pesticide products, announced that it would cease production of those products by the end of 2020, citing declining sales as the reason for the move — no doubt fueled by both states’ actions and momentum against use of the products because of their dire health consequences. The problem behind that welcome news is the difference between one company stopping production and EPA cancellation of the registration of chlorpyrifos. Continued EPA registration permits other generic manufacturers to continue to produce and sell such products.

The UW researchers charge that “Decades of exposure to chlorpyrifos and all the political wrangling and lawsuits surrounding it might have been averted if a 1972 study had been adequately reviewed by the EPA. . . . The EPA also did not re-analyze the study data when new statistical techniques became available a few years later [in the 1980s].” UW News reports that if the Coulston data had been re-evaluated with the newer statistical tools that became available in the ‘80s (as should have been done, and as the UW researchers did), “EPA’s reviewers would have seen that chlorpyrifos’ effect on the body’s chemistry accumulated over time and that the study had not discovered the ‘no observed adverse effect level’ used by regulators to set safe levels of exposure.” Dr. Sheppard commented, “All kinds of approvals were allowed for uses that never should have been allowed and quite well wouldn’t have been allowed if the Coulston study authors had properly reported their results.”

The co-authors note that their re-analysis points to issues of concern beyond those specific to chlorpyrifos. One is that EPA reliance on research results that have not been properly peer reviewed can endanger public health. As they write, “The original analysis, conducted by Dow-employed statisticians, did not undergo formal peer review; nevertheless, EPA cited the Coulston study as credible research and kept its reported NOAEL as a point of departure for risk assessments throughout much of the 1980s and 1990s. During that period, EPA allowed chlorpyrifos to be registered for multiple residential uses that were later cancelled to reduce potential health impacts to children and infants. Had appropriate analyses been employed in the evaluation of this study, it is likely that many of those registered uses of chlorpyrifos would not have been authorized by EPA.”

Emeritus professor in the UW School of Public Health’s Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences, Dr. Richard Fenske, notes that the reasons for the failure of EPA to review the Coulston study — when EPA began a supposedly systematic review of such older studies in 2006 by its inaugural Human Studies Review Board — are a mystery. That said, UW News reports that when EPA began that review of such human-subject studies, the chief manufacturer of chlorpyrifos products (then Dow Chemical) specifically pulled that study from the review process, according to Dr. Fenske, a member of the initial review board. “You can speculate why they did, but they formally asked the Human Studies Review Board not to review this study and so it was never reviewed.”

Dr. Fenske also said, “It is a cautionary tale that data being submitted for pesticide registration may not have undergone proper review, and that could be happening today.” Dr. Sheppard aserted that, minimally, studies funded by companies developing a chemical that is under review need to be opened to outside scrutiny, adding, “I’m not sure industry should be doing these studies at all. I don’t think the fox should be guarding the hen house.”

Sources: https://www.washington.edu/news/2020/08/18/data-omission-in-key-epa-insecticide-study-shows-need-for-review-of-industry-analysis/ and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020318602#!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 20, 2020) Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including banned and current-use pesticides are present in snow and ice on top of Arctic glaciers, according to the study, “Atmospheric Deposition of Organochlorine Pesticides and Industrial Compounds to Seasonal Surface Snow at Four Glacier Sites on Svalbard, 2013–2014,” published in Environmental Science & Technology. Past research finds that air contaminated with these environmentally bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals drift toward the poles, becoming entrapped in ice under the accumulating snowfall. As the global climate continues to rise and the climate crisis worsens, studies like this become significant, as glaciers encapsulating these toxic chemicals are melting. Upon melting, some chemicals can volatize back into the atmosphere releasing toxicants into air and aquatic systems, with the ensuing consequences. Although this research demonstrates that specific computer programs can track the trajectory of chemically contaminated air parcels with practical precision, it falls to global leaders to curtail the continued manufacturing of these chemical pollutants. [For related pieces, see Silent Snow: The unimaginable impact of toxic chemical use and DDT in Glacial Melt Puts Alaskan Communities at Risk.]

Countless scientists consider Arctic environments to be “pristine,” void of direct chemical inputs from pesticides and other POPs. However, the Arctic has become a sink for these toxic chemicals, as studies find evidence that airborne Arctic POPs concentrations are comparable to that of industrialized regions like the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Additional investigations find the presence of POPs in soil and ice samples taken from Arctic regions. The problem is escalating, despite the 2001 Stockholm Convention—a global treaty to eliminate POPs— signed by 183 countries and the European Union, but not the United States. While various POPs on the Stockholm Convention annex lists are no longer manufactured or utilized, POPs still mobilize and accumulate in regions void of industrial or agricultural activities, like glacier tops and remote territories. As the Convention states, “Given their long-range transport, no one government acting alone can protect its citizens or its environment from POPs.” Although a plethora of studies document chemical pollution in the Arctic, researchers note that, “[T]his study represents the first attempt to understand how atmospheric pollutants are captured by snow and deposited at high-elevation glacial sites.”

This study quantifies POPs accumulation deposited on Arctic snow over one winter using four glaciers of various altitudes (Holtedahlfonna, Kongsvegen, Lomonosovfonna, and Austfonna) across Svalbard (a Norwegian archipelago). While the presence of POPs in Arctic air is well-known, much less is understood about atmospheric deposition. To identify what chemicals are present, researchers collected and analyzed 12 snow samples from each glacier site, surveying for 36 pesticides and seven industrial chemicals with Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC−high-resolution MS). To assess contamination variability between glacial sites, researchers used a Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model to evaluate long-range atmospheric transport by measuring how frequently POPs-contaminated air masses came from source areas to sampling sites.

All seven industrial chemicals and thirteen pesticides are detectable at all glacier sampling sites, with the total fluctuation of pesticide concentrations greater than industrial chemicals at all sites, according to the study. The seven industrial chemicals include hexachlorobutadiene, 1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-T4CB, pentachlorobenzene, pentachloroanisole, 3,4,5,6-tetrachlorodimethoxybenene, and hexachlorobenzene. The thirteen pesticides include heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide B, aldrin, α-and γ-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), chlorpyrifos, trans- and cis-chlordane, 4,4′-DDE, dieldrin, dacthal (DCPA), trans-nonachlor, and α-endosulfan. Chlorpyrifos, dieldrin, and trans-chlordane dominate most Arctic areas, accounting for at least 50% of the total pesticide concentrations at each sample site. As for air mass variability among glacial sites, Austfonna has the most frequent long-distance transport of air masses, suggesting that air masses circulate in this area for a majority of the time during winter from sources other than the local sampling sites.

The Arctic is highly susceptible to global pollution, as warmer air contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemicals from manufacturing regions move poleward toward cooler air. Pollutants, like POPs, condense on snowflakes, high in the atmosphere, and deposit onto the Arctic surface. Although deposition of these chemicals via long-range atmospheric transport and condensation are significant contributors to Arctic contamination, the chemical properties allowing these substances to persist in the environment so long are concerning. Some of these long-lived chemicals include regionally banned pesticides like DDT, heptachlor, and lindane, which are highly toxic to humans and animals, causing a range of adverse effects, from respiratory issues, nervous system disorders, 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 use of POPs will result in an increased probability of long-range transport of these chemicals for deposition on Arctic glacier tops via precipitation. According to Brettania Walker, PhD, Toxics Officer at World Wildlife Fund’s Arctic Program, “Not only is chemical contamination increasing in the Arctic, but also modern chemicals are now appearing in many arctic species alongside older chemicals, some of them banned for over [30] years.”

As the concentration of POPs increases in the Arctic, the climate crisis adds another level of concern, especially regarding passive pesticide exposure from snowmelt. Pesticide contamination is already an issue in the U.S., as results of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) studies show that pesticides and their degradants are present in U.S. streams and widespread in groundwater throughout the country. Furthermore, a recent study shows Chicago-based black women consuming more glasses of tap water per day have residues of the DDT metabolite (DDE’) in their system. However, the glacial melting caused by the climate crisis will only add to water source contamination, as the release of volatile POPs will enter waterways at the same concentration levels as before ice entrapment, even after several decades.

Many POPs are not soluble in water, but bioaccumulate in the fatty tissue of many Arctic species, such as polar bears, seals, whale, and some fatty fish like salmon, herring, and catfish. Arctic penguins’ blubber contains levels of DDT similar to when the product was initially banned more than 30 years ago. Unfortunately, some indigenous tribes in Arctic regions rely on these very mammals and fish for sustenance, and ingesting these pollutants is inevitable, putting their health at risk. Higher bodily concentrations of POPs is evident in those who consume contaminated meat with associated health risks, including immune system disorder, increased susceptibility to disease, central nervous system disorders, learning disabilities among children, reproductive issue, and cancer. Studies find that adults and children who regularly consume fish from contaminated streams are at increased risk of cancer from dietary and cumulative exposure, in many cases above EPA thresholds.

As global warming progresses and the melting glaciers release more POPs into waterways, exposure concerns will increase significantly, especially for children who are more vulnerable to toxic effects of chemical exposure. To mitigate the risks associated with chemical exposure from toxic pesticides, advocates say that the manufacturing and use of pesticides must be addressed first and foremost. Recently, agrochemicals like pesticides and fertilizers overtook the fossil fuel industry as the leading contributor of environmental sulfur emissions. If pesticide use and manufacturing are amplifying the impacts of the climate crisis, advocates argue that it is essential to incite change at the point source via enhanced pesticide policy and regulation that eliminates use.

Chlorpyrifos and dacthal are the two pesticides from the study that are in current use in the U.S., with chlorpyrifos being the more abundant of the two chemicals. In 2000, EPA negotiated to withdraw chlorpyrifos from most residential markets, due to the neurotoxic effects on children. However, uses in agriculture, on golf courses, and for public health mosquito management continue. Human exposure to this chemical can induce endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, fetal defects, neurotoxic damage, and kidney/liver damage. While the U.S. manufacturer, Corteva (formerly DowDupont) decided to stop chlorpyrifos production at the end of 2020, it is maintaining its registration with EPA as generic manufacturers will  continue production. Three states—Hawaii, California, New York—and the European Union have adopted some form of phase out or restriction of its agricultural uses. After passing legislation in Maryland to restrict chlorpyrifos use, the bill is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Dacthal, on the other hand, remains in production and has possible links to skin and eye irritation, liver/kidney damage, and cancer.

As global warming associated with the climate crisis continues to melt glaciers, banned and current-use pesticides pose a risk to human and animal health upon release into the atmosphere and waterways. Lack of adequate persistent pesticide regulations highlights the need for better policies surrounding pesticide use, especially when a toxic pesticide is banned for use in the U.S., but not for production and export to other countries. 

A switch from chemical-intensive agriculture to regenerative organic agriculture can significantly reduce the threat of the climate crisis by eliminating toxic, petroleum-based pesticide use, building soil health, and sequestering 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, while organic production reduces greenhouse gas emissions and sequesters carbon in the soil. Learn more about how it is possible to 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(s): Earth Institute | Columbia University,  Environmental Science & Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2020) Stranded dolphins and whales along the United States Eastern Seaboard contain herbicides, disinfectants, plastics, and heavy metals, research published in Frontiers of Marine Science finds. The witches brew of toxins is likely contributing to ill health among these ecologically important, intelligent, and charismatic species, and may be playing a role in the occurrence of strandings. “It’s really hard to judge, when an animal strands, if the toxins in the animal were related to why it stranded,” said James Sullivan, PhD, executive director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute in Florida, which participated in the study, to UPI. “But these health problems do stack up. The animal is much more susceptible to succumbing to natural disease and environmental problems, just like humans are more likely to get ill from coronavirus if they have underlying conditions.”

Dr. Sullivan’s statement rings true across a range of impacts resulting from chemical exposure or other stressors – while an individual may not be killed outright, weakening that occurs after exposure can significantly affect long term fitness in the wild. Eventually, these effects can add up to significant population declines. Unfortunately, this phenomenon in the natural world is often presented as “mysterious” by the press. Concern over toxic exposures are often glossed over in the context of a regulatory system that focuses primarily on acute effects, permits certain levels of risk from exposure, and continues to neglect full accounting of the externalities caused by chemical use.

In order to understand the range of stressors dolphins had been exposed to, researchers collected tissue samples in coordination with existing marine mammal stranding networks along the East Coast. Over 60 blubber and liver samples from 83 different animals were tested in the lab for the herbicide atrazine, antimicrobial disinfectant triclosan, concentrations of PCB, bisphenol-A (BPA), diethyl phthalates, nonylphenol monoethoxylate [NPE], and a range of heavy metals, including arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead.

Bottlenose dolphins were found to have high levels of triclosan in their bodies, second only to BPA. Both dolphins and pygmy sperm whales tested had lower levels of atrazine, but detections were not insignificant. Triclosan, atrazine, and BPA have each been shown to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system in a range of animals, including mammals, at infinitesimally small levels of exposure. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has yet to regulate chemicals for this criteria, despite an over 20 year old mandate from Congress to do so.

Levels of other harmful compounds, such as heavy metals, were also of concern. These exposures appear to differ based on location. For example, dolphins found stranded along the Florida coast are more likely to contain high levels of lead and mercury when compared to dolphins found along North Carolina. The difference is likely attributed to habitat. Dolphins stranded in North Carolina likely spend most of their lives in the open ocean, while a number of Florida dolphin populations live and feed near the shore, where they are more exposed to human runoff and pollution.  

“Some of the mercury levels we found were the highest found anywhere in the world,” said study coauthor Justin Perrault, PhD. “It is eye-opening. To see the levels of some of these contaminants is alarming.”

Researchers also looked at tissue samples for evidence of disease, documenting abnormal cell growth, hepatitis, fibrosis, and disfunction in the lymphatic system and thyroid glands. In sum, the data appear to indicate that many dolphins are likely dealing with a range of underlying health conditions prior to the stranding incident that killed them.

The present study is the first to observe and detect certain chemicals like atrazine in the bodies of dolphins and whales, but several prior studies have shown cause for concern. As far back as 2009, scientists had detected triclosan in bottlenose dolphins sampled in Florida and South Carolina. Two studies, one published in 2016 and another in 2019, found dolphins along the Eastern Seaboard carrying chemicals considered to be trade secrets by the pesticide industry.  

“We must do our part to reduce the amount of toxicants that enter into our marine environment, which have important health and environmental implications not just for marine life but for humans,” said Page-Karjian, PhD, lead author and researcher from the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at the Florida Atlantic University, in a press release. “These chemicals work their way up through the food chain and get more concentrated the higher up they go. When dolphins and whales eat fish with concentrations of the chemicals, the toxic elements enter their bodies. Dolphins eat a variety of fish and shrimp in these marine environments and so do humans.”

In many ways, animals are acting as sentient species for chemical contamination. Unless more is done to address this pollution, humans are likely to see similar declines in general health, fitness, and well-being. We cannot simply continue observe while ecosystems are poisoned – science points the way, but it is the job of informed residents of the United States to act in a way that protects public health and the wider environment. Learn more about the dangers 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: Frontiers in Marine Science, UPI

(Beyond Pesticides, August 18, 2020) Ongoing declines in bird population and diversity are being accelerated by the use of neonicotinoid insecticides, according to research published in Nature Sustainability earlier this month. The paper comes on the heels of a groundbreaking study released last year, finding that the United States has lost 3 billion birds since 1970, a roughly 30% decrease from that time. This new research adds further detail to losses that have occurred within the last decade, as farming patterns have shifted increasingly to the use of pesticide-coated seeds that poison.

Researchers used an extensive dataset from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, a project maintained by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The project takes regular counts of bird species along 2,953 survey routes established throughout North America, accounting for dozens of both grassland and insectivorous birds, and over 630 non-grassland species. Pesticides were weighted for their toxicity to birds, and researchers produced an empirical analysis using regression models in order to establish a casual relationship between neonicotinoid use and bird populations.

Using these models, researchers determined that for every 100kg (220 lbs) increase in the use of any neonicotinoid within a US county, grassland bird populations subsequently decrease by 2.2%, and 1.4% of non-grassland birds die-off. Similarly, 1.6% insect-eating birds are lost, and 1.5% of non-insectivorous species are killed off. Species richness, the number of different bird species in a given area, and species evenness, determined by the relative abundance of different species, also decline as neonicotinoid use increases.

The numbers above are static scenarios. Dynamic modeling, which includes a ‘lagged variable’ useful in accounting for how population declines in the year before affect current-year declines, show cause for even greater concern. Researchers determined that from 2008 to 2014, neonicotinoids accounted for declines of 4% per year in grassland bird species, totaling nearly 10% over the six year time frame. Insect-eating birds declined at a slightly lower rate of 2% per year, and 4% total, while non-grassland and non-insectivorous birds declined 1% per year, 2% in total.

“Anything that can have an impact beyond what the target species are is concerning,” said study coauthor Madhu Khanna, PhD, of University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to the Guardian. “Given the integrated nature of our ecosystem, the loss of any one part adversely affects the whole.”

The study acts as a culmination of several threads of ongoing research into the impacts of neonicotinoids on bird populations. As far back as 2013, when data for the current study was still being collected, the American Bird Conservancy published a report finding that just a single kernel of neonicotinoid-coated corn contained enough to kill a songbird. Renown ornithologist Pierre Mineau, PhD, sounded the alarm through a study in PLOS One, indicating that acutely toxic pesticides should be considered a critical aspect of grassland bird declines.

A 2014 study by scientists in the Netherlands found results similar to the current study as well. In areas where water was found to be concentrated with high levels of imidacloprid, birds populations were found to decline by an average of roughly 3.5% per year.

A 2017 study found that neonicotinoids like imidacloprid had the ability to disrupt songbird migration, making it more likely that a bird will die during its perilous migration route. And these data were confirmed by a 2019 study, which confirmed that, like pollinators, neonicotinoids are usually not killing migratory birds outright, but instead precipitating a cascade of sublethal impacts that reduces their fitness in the wild, and makes them more likely to die or be killed.

It is evident that the insect apocalypse is beginning to move up the food chain. As we approach irrefutable proof linking neonicotinoid use not only to pollinator declines, but also declines in beloved U.S. birds, we must reckon with an administration completely uninterested in protecting environmental health. Not only has the Trump administration refused to place even modest restrictions on neonicotinoid insecticides, it has rolled back prior safeguards that banned pesticide-treated seeds and genetically engineered crops on wildlife refuges. Thus, even the nation’s “wild” public lands represent a threat to America’s birds.

A bill in Congress, Saving America’s Pollinators Act, championed by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), would put a stop to all neonicotinoid use, and establish an independent advisory board to consider further actions to protect pollinators (and, by extension birds and other wildlife). Take Action today to urge your member of Congress to join in support of this critical legislation.

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

Source: Nature Sustainability, The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, August 17, 2020) Once numbering in the millions, barely 29,000 western monarch butterflies were found in California at last count. Pesticides pack a one-two punch against monarchs. Insecticides—particularly neonicotinoids—poison the caterpillars and butterflies as they feed. Glyphosate—the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup® — is wiping out milkweed, the only food source for monarch caterpillars. This has contributed to monarchs’ 90% decline in the past 20 years alone. They could vanish within our lifetimes.

Home and garden stores like Lowe’s and Home Depot can play a huge role in ending the use of this toxic pesticide in our backyards and across the country. Already, Lowe’s is removing neonicotinoid products from its live plant offerings and store shelves, and Home Depot is eliminating use of neonicotinoids in its live plant offerings. They could stop selling Roundup®. More importantly, they could encourage organic practices through their product offerings and consumer education.

Ask Home Depot and Lowe’s to get Roundup® off their shelves and promote and educate on organic!

Companies like Lowe’s and Home Depot could be leaders by removing products containing glyphosate/Roundup® from their physical stores and online—following the example of their competitor, Costco. This would send a powerful message to Bayer that it must phase out this harmful chemical. Instead of replacing Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup® with other toxic products, garden retailers can facilitate a switch to organic by educating consumers and increasing offerings of organic-compatible and other safer alternatives. 

Organic alternatives work within an organic system that includes practices that build soil, cycle nutrients naturally, and increase biodiversity—including soil-building organisms, pollinators, and predators and parasites of plant-eating insects. Attempting to sell organic products as stand-alone “silver bullet” solutions dooms customers to failure, while educating them about the role of those products in an organic system will bring them back for more.

In the absence of effective regulation by the Trump Administration, we need garden retailers to act responsibly. Customers like you played a key role in convincing Home Depot and Lowe’s to protect pollinators by committing to stop selling plants grown with bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides. Now, you can push them to take another vital step in pollinator protection. 

Ask Home Depot and Lowe’s to get Roundup® off their shelves and promote and educate on organic!

Roundup has been marketed by Bayer/Monsanto as effective and safe, but, in reality, its use delivers human and ecosystem harms. Exposures to it threaten human health (including transgenerational impacts) and the health of numerous organisms. In addition, many target plants are developing resistance to the compound, making it increasingly ineffective as a weed killer, and resulting in ever-more-intensive pesticide use. Glyphosate was classified in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a probable human carcinogen.

Last year, a jury ordered Bayer to pay $2 billion to a couple who used glyphosate on their lawn for decades and who both suffered from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Over 52,000 similar court cases are pending. But instead of removing this product from store shelves, Bayer-Monsanto is trying to settle the lawsuits and keep selling this toxic pesticide. Under the terms of the deals, Roundup® would continue to be sold in the U.S. without any safety warning. 

In light of the increasing evidence of the harm glyphosate can cause, some countries have stepped up restrictions or instituted bans on use of the compound, including Italy, Germany, France, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bermuda, Fiji, Luxembourg, and Austria. A growing number of jurisdictions in some countries have taken similar actions. In the U.S., counties, towns, and cities, including Los Angeles, Seattle, and Miami, and many others in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Washington State, and more, have banned glyphosate applications on public lands. The New York State legislature banned glyphosate last month.

The solution to the current federal “whack-a-mole” approach to mitigating the impacts of glyphosate (and all toxic pesticide) use is a wholesale transition away from the chemical dousing of public lands, agricultural fields, and all manner of maintained turf. Organic approaches to insect, weed, and fungal problems in agriculture and on other lands and landscapes (and in homes, gardens, buildings, et al.) do not involve toxic pesticides, and avoid the health and ecological damage they cause.

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.

Bayer-Monsanto won’t protect butterflies, bees and our health on its own. Garden retailers, with Lowe’s and Home Depot leading the way, can help shrink the market for glyphostate/ Roundup® and help keep it out of our backyards and communities, while educating consumers on gardening and land management with an organic systems approach. 

Remind garden retailers they have an important role to play — let them know our health is more important than Bayer’s profits.

Letter to Lowe’s and Home Depot

Home and garden stores like yours can play a huge role in ending the use of this toxic pesticide in our backyards and across the country. Your step to eliminate use of neonicotinoids in live plant offerings helps protect monarchs and other pollinators. I am writing to ask you to stop selling glyphosate products such as Roundup®—as Costco has done—and encourage organic practices through product offerings and education.

Once numbering in the millions, barely 29,000 western monarch butterflies were found in California at last count. Pesticides pack a one-two punch against monarchs. Insecticides—particularly neonicotinoids—poison the caterpillars and butterflies as they feed. Glyphosate—the active ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup®—is wiping out milkweed, the only food source for monarch caterpillars. This has contributed to monarchs’ 90% decline in the past 20 years alone. They could vanish within our lifetimes.

Roundup has been marketed as effective and safe, but, in reality, its use delivers human and ecosystem harms. Exposures to it threaten human health (including transgenerational impacts) and the health of numerous organisms. In addition, many target plants are developing resistance to the compound, making it increasingly ineffective as a weed killer, and resulting in ever-more-intensive pesticide use. Glyphosate was classified in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a probable human carcinogen.

Last year, a jury ordered Bayer to pay $2 billion to a couple who used glyphosate on their lawn for decades and who both suffered from non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Over 52,000 similar court cases are pending. But instead of removing this product from store shelves, Bayer-Monsanto is trying to settle the lawsuits and keep selling this toxic pesticide. Under the terms of the deals, Roundup® would continue to be sold in the U.S. without any safety warning.

Customers ask you for advice. In addition to removing glyphosate products from your shelves, your stores should advise customers to use organic alternatives. Organic alternatives work within an organic system that includes practices that build soil and increase biodiversity—including soil-building organisms, pollinators, and predators and parasites of plant-eating insects. Attempting to sell organic products as stand-alone “silver bullet” solutions dooms customers to failure, while educating them about the role of those products in an organic system will support nature organic land management and organic-compatible products.

We are living during a period that requires retailers, like you, to take responsible action in the face of inadequate federal toxic pesticide restrictions, despite the availability of environmentally responsible practices and products. We urge you to be a responsible retailer by taking glyphosate/Roundup® off your shelves and educating consumers on organic gardening and land management with organic-compatible products.

Thank you for considering my request and promoting good health through organic lawns and gardens.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2020) Levels of the notorious herbicide compound glyphosate in the human body are reduced by 70% through a one-week switch to an organic diet, finds a new, peer-reviewed study published in August 2020 in the journal Environmental Research. This result emphasizes both the ubiquity of this compound in the human body, and diet as the primary source of exposure for most people. It also adds to the evidence for Beyond Pesticides’ assertions that: (1) chemical-intensive agriculture must be abandoned, for a variety of reasons that include human health, and (2) in the lead-up to a transition to organic and regenerative agriculture, consuming organic foods as much as is practicable is powerful protection from glyphosate, and from the assault of multiple chemical pesticides to which most people are exposed.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the popular weed killer Roundup^TM, which has been used intensively in the U.S. and around the world, especially during the last couple of decades. It is very commonly used on crops grown from genetically engineered (GE) companion seeds for a variety of staple crops (e.g., soybeans, cotton, and corn). These GE seeds are glyphosate-tolerant, whose attribute has allowed growers to apply the herbicide and expect that it will kill weeds and not harm the crop. This calculation is changing, however, as weeds develop resistance to glyphosate, causing industry to double down on its chemical solutions.

The ready adoption of Roundup^TM and GE seeds by growers has made exposures to glyphosate exceedingly common — especially from dietary exposure, as this study demonstrates. The researchers write, “Recent research indicates that the increase in use of glyphosate has been paralleled by an increase in exposure of the human population, at least in the U.S. It was reported that urine glyphosate levels increased more than five-fold from the mid-1970s to 2014, and that the percent of the population with detectable urine glyphosate levels increased nearly 600%, representing more than 70% of the population.”

In 2019, the Environmental Working Group, utilizing U.S. Department of Agriculture data, reported that roughly 70% of U.S. produce harbors pesticide residues. Also in that year, The Nation reported that more than 90% of the U.S. population has pesticides or their byproducts in their bodies, primarily from eating conventionally grown fruits and vegetables.

A previous study covered by Beyond Pesticides demonstrated the very significant reductions in urinary pesticide metabolites (breakdown products from parent compounds) achieved by a dietary shift from consuming conventionally grown food to organically grown foods. This subject research furthers the investigation of impacts of an organic diet on pesticide exposures. The study paper, Organic Diet Intervention Significantly Reduces Urinary Glyphosate Levels in U.S. Children and Adults, reports on the second phase of a two-part study evaluating the same set of urine samples. The study was funded by Friends of the Earth U.S.

The paper on the first part of the study, published in Environmental Research in 2019, evaluated the samples for metabolites of 13 pesticide compounds, including organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and pyrethroids, as well as 2,4-D. It found that the switch to organic diet was associated with significant reductions in urinary excretion of several of the pesticide metabolites and parent compounds.

This second part of the two-part study found that, prior to the shift to organic foods, 100% of test subjects — both adults and children — showed the presence of glyphosate’s primary metabolite, AMPA (aminomethyl phosphonic acid) in urine samples (the standard way to measure pesticide residues in the body). Furthermore, the average level of the compound in the subject children was fivefold that in the study’s adult participants.

Research participants comprised individuals from four geographically and racially diverse U.S. families hailing from Baltimore, Atlanta, Minneapolis, and Oakland. Urine samples were collected during a six-day period in which all subjects consumed a diet of conventionally grown and raised foods, and again during a six-day period of only organic food consumption. Although the study sample was small (16), the number of urine samples assayed (158) was sufficient for researchers to make statistically significant conclusions.

The outcome metrics are fairly stunning: average glyphosate levels, after the six days of an organic diet, dropped by 70.93%, and mean AMPA levels fell by 76.71%. When level reductions in adults and children during the organic phase were examined separately, roughly similar results were seen: adult glyphosate levels fell by 71.59% and AMPA metabolites by 83.3%. In children, the reductions were a 70.85% glyphosate decrease and a 69.85% dip in AMPA.

Study co-author and senior staff scientist at Friends of the Earth, Kendra Klein, PhD, commented: “It’s striking that levels of this toxic pesticide dropped so dramatically after less than a week. Given our results and related studies on how an organic diet rapidly reduces pesticide exposure, we could expect to see similar reductions in glyphosate levels in most Americans if they switched to an organic diet. That’s the good news. The bad news is that most of us are eating glyphosate-laden food continuously, resulting in daily doses of the chemical from breakfast through dinner.”

Although the roughly dozen manufacturers of glyphosate herbicides (Bayer being the largest) tout them as safe, there is ample evidence that this is not the case, for either human or ecosystem health. Glyphosate exposure can have myriad health effects (e.g., contributions to cardiac, metabolic, endocrine, respiratory, reproductive, gastrointestinal, and immune dysfunction), including cancer (especially non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma), Parkinson’s Disease, and adverse multigenerational impacts, among others. In addition, glyphosate is implicated in altering the human gut biome; disturbances in that biome are associated with a plethora of diseases, including asthma, autism, bacterial vaginosis, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Crohn’s disease, depression, inflammatory bowel disease, leaky gut syndrome, multiple sclerosis, obesity, Type 1 and 2 diabetes, and Parkinson’s Disease.

These many potential impacts make the extent of glyphosate’s presence in human bodies, as evidenced through this study, very concerning. Yet the speed with which residues of the pesticide can be brought dramatically lower with changed dietary practices is encouraging.

Dr. Klein of Friends of the Earth notes: “We all have the right to food that is free of toxic pesticides, but our federal regulatory system is broken and is not protecting us. We urgently need our elected leaders to make healthy organic food the norm for everyone by passing policies that support farmers to shift from pesticide-intensive to organic farming.” Dr. Klein’s colleague and co-author Sharyle Patton, Director of the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resources Center, added, “During the coronavirus pandemic, the inequities of our food system have become ever more clear. Research shows that communities of color are at higher risk of serious complications and death from coronavirus as a result of already suffering from higher rates of diet-related diseases. Now more than ever, we need public policies that ensure that all communities have access to healthy, organic food.”

Beyond Pesticides could not agree more. The headline for any sensible public guidance on avoiding exposures to glyphosate would have to be: eat organic food whenever possible. There are other protective strategies, including: avoiding use of glyphosate products in home gardens or on lawns; paying attention to water quality reporting for local water supplies; and advocating for nontoxic, organic land management and agriculture. Follow Beyond Pesticides coverage of glyphosate through the Daily News Blog and the journal, Pesticides and You, and become a supporting member of this organization, which is dedicated to sound information on pesticides, and advocacy on moving to less- and nontoxic practices for a safer world.

Sources: https://sustainablepulse.com/2020/08/11/glyphosate-levels-in-children-and-adults-drop-dramatically-after-one-week-of-eating-organic/#.XzQJXhNKjde  and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935120307933.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2020) An alarming new scientific report finds that excessive, indiscriminate disinfectant use against COVID-19 puts wildlife health at risk, especially in urban settings. The analysis, published in the journal Environmental Research, finds many of the chemical ingredients in disinfectant products are “acutely toxic to both terrestrial and aquatic animals,” causing death following exposure. Additionally, these chemicals have implications for human health as infectious disease specialists at the World Health Organization (WHO) warn excessive disinfectant use can cause respiratory problems, especially for those with underlying respiratory conditions.

With the total U.S. COVID-19 cases rising above 5.1 million, and the pressure to reopen public facilities, like schools, restaurants, gyms, etc., increasing, lack of proper disinfection guidelines and monitoring generates concerns surrounding heightened environmental pollution. The authors’ analysis supports the need for global leaders to regulate the spraying of disinfectants, especially in urban areas, with input from the scientific community. Wildlife are moving into urban areas at higher rates due to food availability and protection from hunting and natural dangers. However, if indiscriminate dispersal of disinfectants continues, these urban inhabitants face a whirlwind of health risks associated with exposure. The report’s analysts note, “The overuse of disinfectants may contaminate the habitats of urban wildlife. . . Therefore, it is important that disinfectants used to control COVID-19 in urban environments are selected and applied in ways that avoid unnecessary environmental pollution.”

Amidst the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), the global demand for disinfectants and sanitizers has increased substantially as a means of preventing illness in domestic and community settings. Initially, public health officials considered disinfecting highly trafficked areas as the most effective way to combat COVID-19. This notion has led to improper disinfectant practices in many countries, including China, France, and Spain, which employed trucks, drones, or robots to disperse massive amounts of disinfectants into public areas. However, the active ingredients in most disinfectants are harmful because these chemical compounds have corrosive and irritating properties. The New York Times reports an increase in calls to poison control centers regarding illnesses resulting from use or misuse of toxic disinfectants during the pandemic. Furthermore, WHO, and other infectious-disease specialists, condemn indiscriminate and vast amounts of disinfectant spraying in public areas as it is both ineffective and a health hazard, upon inhalation, or when combined with other disinfectants. Although some individuals can mitigate exposure to these toxic chemicals by remaining indoors, urban wildlife cannot do the same and bear the brunt of disinfectant exposure. As cities remain in lockdown, with streets void of humans, urban wildlife can roam around cities more frequently and in higher numbers. However, the vast amount of disinfectant use coinciding with the increase in urban wildlife during lockdown has scientists concerned about the impact on wildlife biodiversity.

Since China was the first country to begin citywide sanitation, researchers analyze a Chongqing Forestry Bureau report from Chongqing, China that investigated animal poisonings after exposure to disinfectants. Using field investigations in conjunction with sampling and testing done by animal quarantine agencies, researchers document the cause of these animal poisonings.

According to the Chongqing report, excessive disinfectant use results in abnormal animal deaths. At least 135 animals of 17 different species (including wild boars, weasels, common blackbirds [Turdus merula], and other bird species) died after disinfectant exposure from spraying.

Although chemical disinfectants kill viruses, bacteria, and other microbes via cell wall and protein destruction, they can also irritate and destroy the mucous membranes in animal and human respiratory and digestive tracts upon ingestion or inhalation. Occasionally, this exposure can lead to death in extreme cases. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system. are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. Many of the products approved as disinfectants have negative impacts on the respiratory or immune system, thus reducing resistance to the disease.  When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern. Exposure to disinfectant products containing toxic chemicals, such as chlorine bleach, peroxyacetic acid, quaternary ammonium compounds (quats), sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione, and hydrochloric acid are associated with a long list of adverse effects, from asthma to cancer. All of these chemicals can harm the respiratory system, with some quats shown to cause mutations, lower fertility, and increase antibiotic resistance. Additionally, toxic phenolic chemical compounds (i.e., cresols, hexachlorobenzene, and chlorophenols) cause adverse health effects from inhalation or exposure to the skin, including headaches, burning eyes, muscle tremors, skin burns, irregular heartbeat, severe injury to the heart, liver, kidneys, and lungs, cancer, and even death. Beyond Pesticides believes, “It is important during public health emergencies involving infectious diseases to scrutinize practices and products very carefully so that hazards presented by the crisis are not elevated because of the unnecessary threat introduced with toxic chemical use.”

Many studies show the links between human health and environmental and animal health as urban wildlife can positively affect human’s physical, mental, societal, cultural, and economic health and stability. However, toxic disinfectants can disrupt wildlife productivity via direct or indirect impacts. Chlorine, one of the most common disinfectants, is acutely toxic to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, including birds and mammals, causing respiratory injuries, digestive wounds, and death. Additionally, chlorine residue can bioaccumulate in the environment and contaminate food and water sources, thus creating an indirect exposure route for organisms never exposed to chlorine disinfectants.

Although disinfection is one of the most efficient ways to kill pathogens, one must follow scientifically based guidelines that take into consideration the effectiveness, accessibility, and health risks associated with the careful selection and proper use of disinfectant products. Scientists analyzing the Chongqing report believe, “Given that there are no scientific guidelines for the large-scale use of disinfectants in outdoor urban environments, it is crucial to develop strategies to minimize the environmental pollution caused by this practice… [A]n effective biological and environmental safety evaluation and prevention system are required to be put forward for facilitating healthy environments for organisms and biodiversity, especially for managing the future global public health challenges.”

With the management of viral and bacterial infections, we must not exacerbate the risk to both animals and humans in the process of avoiding or controlling the threat. In the case of COVID-19, we have measures of protection—both practices and products—that can prevent infection without using toxic products that increase risk factors. Individuals and government officials, alike, should observe all chemical ingredients on the disinfectant and sanitizer product labels and look at the use instructions to ensure that the method of use is safe for you. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers disinfectants as pesticides designed for use on hard surfaces, but not bare skin like sanitizers. It is essential that when EPA weighs risks and benefits of pesticide use, it does not allow harm to those disproportionally impacted by these chemicals like farm/landscape workers and people of color, who may suffer elevated exposure to the virus as essential workers. An evaluation of the contribution of pesticide use and exposure to health outcomes of COVID-19 is urgently needed. For the facts on meeting health protection needs for disinfection, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers for more information.

Source(s): Environmental Research, National Geographic.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2020) The herbicide atrazine can interfere with the health and reproduction of marsupials (including kangaroos and opossums) kangaroo, Virginia opossum, according to research published in the journal Reproduction, Fertility, and Development. Although the research focuses on the health of the Australian wallaby, the data is relevant for the only marsupial in the United States, the opossum. Unfortunately, the research is no surprise, as atrazine has a long history of displaying endocrine (hormone) disrupting properties, affecting sex and reproduction in a broad range of species.

The study, under the auspices of University of Melbourne Animal Experimentation and Ethics Committee, exposed pregnant female adult wallabies to atrazine through gestation, birth, and lactation. Doses of the weedkiller were slightly higher than real world models, but according to researchers, “It is quite possible a wild animal could get such an exposure.” Researchers then euthanized the newborn wallabies to study atrazine’s effects.

The gonads and phallus of young wallabies were analyzed for any physiological changes or impacts to gene expression. Researchers found changes to the gene expression necessary for basic function of the testis, and a significant reduction in phallus length. “These results demonstrate that [atrazine] exposure during gestation and lactation can significantly affect the development of male young by affecting virilization,” the authors write.

“With the marsupial’s unique mode of reproduction and the young completing their development in the pouch, mothers are unknowingly passing the toxins on in their breast milk, exposing their young to environmental toxins,” said Andrew Pask, PhD, an expert in genetics at University of Melbourne. “Exposures to atrazine is causing major abnormalities in the male reproductive system in many animals, triggering male sterility or even male-to-female sex reversal in frogs.”

Indeed, Tyrone Hayes, PhD, at the University of California, Berkeley, first uncovered atrazine’s potent ability to harm reproductive health through seminal work on amphibian development. Dr. Hayes found that exposure to atrazine at doses as low as 0.1 parts per billion (well below regulatory limits in the US and Australia) had the ability to turn tadpoles into hermaphrodites.

His research, covered at length in a New Yorker article published in 2014, has been the subject of incessant attacks by the major worldwide manufacturer of atrazine, Syngenta (now owned by ChemChina). But as Dr. Hayes notes in his lectures, over and over again, in research across the globe, studies in frogs as well as other animals – from fish to humans, have confirmed atrazine’s ability to affect proper hormonal functioning and impact reproduction.

In Australia, one in five native mammals are at threat of extinction. Animals in North America are not fairing much better, as the continent is in the midst of a wildlife crisis. A study published late last year found that 3 billion North American birds have been killed off since the 1970s. While problems with marsupials may not seem relevant to readers in the United States, it is important to note that opossums, the only North American marsupial, plays a key pest management role in many ecosystems. The opossum is the a voracious eater of ticks, with a single animal able to hoover upwards of 5,000 ticks in a single season.

As it stands, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is permitting atrazine herbicides to be applied to farmland throughout the country without any meaningful oversight. Earlier this year the Trump Administration announced that it would waive a requirement that Syngenta-ChemChina monitor waterways in the Midwest for atrazine contamination. Rather than use the coronavirus crisis to increase environmental monitoring in order to avoid exposure to pesticides that weaken the immune system, the Trump Administration is working in coordination with chemical companies to use the Covid crisis to reduce health and environmental protections.

Worse yet, EPA is set to reregister atrazine for another 15 years of hazardous use. Take action by telling EPA to ban atrazine and other pesticides in the triazine class. For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to animal health, see Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife program page.

Source: Science Daily press release,  Reproduction, Fertility, and Development.

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

U.S. Circuit Judge Paul J. Watford, in a must-read dissent: “Because courts in our circuit must now accept that fundamentally flawed data as the ‘best’ scientific data available, the agency will have no incentive to implement the scientific methods necessary to obtain reliable data.”

(Beyond Pesticides, August 11, 2020) Petitioners who mounted a legal challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) registration of Enlist Duo, a relatively new and highly toxic pesticide product, recently learned of a mixed decision from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case. The good news is that Judge Ryan D. Nelson, writing the opinion for the court, found that EPA, in registering the herbicide Enlist Duo, had failed to protect monarch butterflies, which are under consideration as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On the other and disturbing hand, the court concluded that EPA registration of the product was otherwise lawful — which means that this toxic compound will for now remain on the market. As one of the plaintiffs in the case, Beyond Pesticides is adamant that this product should not be registered for use by EPA.

George Kimbrell, Legal Director of Center for Food Safety and Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs, commented on the decision in the organization’s July 22 press release on the decision: “The panel majority’s unprecedented decision is contrary to controlling law and established science, and Center for Food Safety is analyzing all legal options, including seeking a full court rehearing.”

Enlist Duo is a highly toxic mixture of two herbicides, glyphosate and 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), as well as an unknown number of unlisted adjuvant ingredients. (The latter, 2,4-D, comprises roughly half of the notorious defoliant compound, Agent Orange.) Beyond Pesticides lists both glyphosate and 2,4-D as “toxic” in its Pesticide Gateway database, and identifies both as causing or associated with a variety of human health harms: cancer, and reproductive, neurological, hepatic, renal, natal and developmental anomalies. In addition, glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor (ED), and 2,4-D is a probable ED.

The herbicide also threatens harms to nontarget species. Monarch butterfly populations have suffered greatly from exposure to pesticides, including Enlist Duo. Monarch larvae, which reside and feed on milkweed plants, endure devastating impacts from pesticide drift from nearby treated agricultural fields. A 2015 lawsuit brought by Beyond Pesticides and other petitioners cited EPA’s consistent failure to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on impacts to endangered species, as it is statutorily required to do. That suit focused on impacts of Enlist Duo on two endangered species: the whooping crane and the Indiana bat.

The combined herbicide was developed to be used on genetically engineered (GE), herbicide-tolerant crops, such as corn, soybeans, and cotton — the notion being that when applied, it would knock down broadleaf weeds, but not affect the GE crops. Enlist Duo was created in response to target weeds’ development of resistance to glyphosate herbicides, most notably, Monsanto’s (now Bayer’s) Roundup, which has been used intensively during the past two decades. Dow Chemical rushed to offer Enlist Duo as a quick fix to the problem, but independent scientists and USDA analysis predict that its use will inevitably foster more weed resistance.

Plaintiffs in the case included the National Family Farm Coalition, Family Farm Defenders, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and Pesticide Action Network North America. The National Resources Defense Council joined the suit as a petitioner. The lawsuit alleged that EPA’s 2014, 2015, and 2017 registrations of Enlist Duo violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Suits were brought against each of EPA’s registrations; the Ninth Circuit Court consolidated them into this single case that was adjudicated in late July 2020.

EPA’s 2014 registration of Enlist Duo was amended in 2015 and again in 2017, with resulting allowances for use on the three GE commodity crops deregulated in 34 states. (Enlist Duo was originally manufactured by Dow Chemical, which in 2017 merged with DuPont to form DowDuPont — which in turn spun off the chemical and seed businesses into Corteva AgriScience.) Until the hearing of this case, no court had ever reviewed whether the registration of Enlist Duo met basic safety standards required by FIFRA and ESA. Plaintiffs’ central arguments are: the compound is an existential threat to the monarch butterfly, and EPA has ignored, in its registration of the pesticide, compelling evidence that Enlist Duo represents serious threats to human health.

Beyond Pesticides has often challenged EPA’s failure to assess adequately the risks of this dual compound, through its reporting and its participation in litigation. In 2017, Beyond Pesticides reported that although a “new process for handling ESA consultations was outlined in 2013, EPA continues to bring pesticides to market without adequate data on a chemical’s adverse effects. EPA routinely disregards this requirement, and has been sued numerous times for failing to ensure adequate protections for endangered species.” It wrote in 2019 about EPA’s ongoing failure to assess potential synergistic effects of the compound, saying: “It does not appear that assessments, based on exposure to both glyphosate and 2,4-D choline, have been conducted to properly assess whether synergistic effects can occur in non-plant organisms.”

Despite the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision not to vacate EPA registration of Enlist Duo, there may be potential silver linings in this decision. The court agreed — in opposition to the defendant’s multiple challenges on timing of the petition and on standing — that plaintiffs’ filing was timely and that they had standing to bring the suit. (Having “standing” in legal cases means that a petitioning individual or entity can demonstrate that it has a legal right or interest in bringing an action to challenge the constitutional validity of a law.) In addition, the court did, rather than assume EPA’s claims on their face, actually explore the details of plaintiffs’ arguments related to tank mixing of Enlist Duo with glufosinate, and volatility of the compound and impacts on nontarget organisms.

In addition, the dissenting opinion on the case is encouraging in its recognition of EPA’s failings. In crafting that strong dissenting opinion, Judge Paul J. Watford wrote: “EPA also violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to use the best scientific data available to assess whether Enlist Duo will adversely affect threatened or endangered species. For that reason, I would vacate the 2014 and 2017 registrations under review. . . . The method [EPA] used to assess Enlist Duo’s effects on listed species is scientifically unsound. . . . To evaluate the risks that Enlist Duo poses to listed species, EPA applied the ‘risk quotient’ method. . . . But as the National Academy of Sciences explained in a 2013 report — issued in response to EPA’s own request for advice on the subject — the risk quotient method does not ‘estimate risk’ at all. . . . [The] National Research Council of the National Academies [said] ‘It provides no information about the probability of an adverse effect’ because single-point estimates do not account for the full range of possible exposure scenarios . . . [and] risk quotients may not even reflect the worst-case scenario. . . . The Academy concluded that risk quotients ‘are not scientifically defensible for assessing the risks to listed species posed by pesticides or indeed for any application in which the desire is to base a decision on the probabilities of various possible outcomes.’ . . . [The Academy] reiterated that EPA’s current approach to risk assessments is ‘not appropriate.’ . . . EPA’s use of the risk quotient method violated the Endangered Species Act, and the 2014 and 2017 registrations of Enlist Duo should be vacated as a result.”

In his dissent, Judge Watford also offered some cautionary criticism of the majority’s ruling: “In reaching this outcome, the majority has created a new rule with serious implications. Following today’s decision, an agency may rely on data produced by a scientifically indefensible methodology so long as better data, produced by a methodology that is scientifically defensible, has not yet been generated. Because courts in our circuit must now accept that fundamentally flawed data as the ‘best’ scientific data available, the agency will have no incentive to implement the scientific methods necessary to obtain reliable data. That is not what Congress intended when it required EPA and other federal agencies to use the best scientific data available, and it is certainly not the outcome that our cases demand.”

The larger issue this case (and many others) demonstrate is that federal pesticide regulation — enabled primarily by FIFRA, ESA, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) — and as it currently is enacted, is inadequate to the task of protecting human and ecosystem health. Multiple agencies bear some responsibility for regulation, though EPA is primary in this regard. EPA’s registration of pesticides is characterized by:

• egregious impacts of industry influence
• the agency’s withdrawal of focus on protection of health, biodiversity, and ecosystems, as well as a delegitimizing of independent science and scientists
• failure to consider adequately health impacts of pesticide exposures during vulnerable human developmental windows, or harms to biodiversity, or synergistic dynamics of multiple compounds as they exist in the real world
• a risk assessment process that addresses one pesticide product at a time, though multiple products may contain the same problematic active ingredient

Taken together, these gaps constitute a systemic failure of the current approach. Beyond Pesticides describes that failure as “the folly of the federal regulatory system’s attempts to ‘mitigate’ risks of pesticide exposure through small and piecemeal rules. Given the many thousands of chemical pesticides on the market, the complexity of trying to ensure ‘relative’ safety from them . . . and the heaps of cash that fund corporate interests . . . via lobbyists and trade associations, there is one conclusion. ‘Mitigation’ of pesticide risks is a nibble around the edges of a pervasive poison problem; this approach does not at all adequately protect the fragility of life.”

Beyond Pesticides wrote recently, “Piecemeal, locality-by-locality initiatives represent mere ‘drops’ of protection in an ocean of toxic chemical pesticides to which the U.S. public is exposed. A far more effective, protective solution is the much-needed transition from chemical-intensive agriculture and other kinds of land management to organic systems that do not use toxic pesticides.” Beyond Pesticides advocates for a statutory and regulatory approach to pesticides that prohibits high-risk chemical practices, and rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations filled with uncertainty.

A genuinely protective, precautionary approach requires systemic change to organic and regenerative approaches to land and pest management. These systems would, for example, proscribe use of petrochemical “controls” and inputs (e.g., pesticides and synthetic fertilizers), and arrest the current trajectory of more, and more-toxic, chemical use that threatens human health, ecosystems, biodiversity, and the climate. Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman says, “This transformation should be propelled by the reality that, with the viability of organic practices, we do not need pesticides to meet our agricultural needs or to sustain human health.”

The public can help catalyze this transition through education about organic agriculture, buying organic products (food and non-food items), growing your own organic produce, creating marketplace demand, advocating for organic regulations in the marketplace, and pressuring elected officials to enact legislation and executive action to advance progress toward a far less toxic world.

Sources: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6094/court-of-appeals-decision-on-epa-approval-of-dows-enlist-duo-pesticide and http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/07/22/17-70810.pdf

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2020) As parents, educators, and administrators decide whether to open schools with in-person teaching, there are escalating concerns about the ability of schools to put in place the programs necessary to protect the health of students, staff, and their families from coronavirus (COVID-19). A key part of most school reopening plans is the fogging or misting of classrooms with toxic disinfectants, raising questions about safe and effective disinfection and sanitizing practices, in addition to social practices that public health officials have advised, to prevent transmission of the virus.

For those who want to advocate for protective measures prior to school reopening: Tell Congress and Governors that schools must reopen only when safe. Schools must have adequate resources to ensure safety.

“While people are eager to reopen schools, it is critical that they adopt basic cleaning and safe and effective disinfection procedures, ventilation and infrastructure changes, and adequate maintenance support,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “However, these basic practices must follow the recommendations of public health officials, including a less than one percent community transmission rate, social distancing and masks, adequate disease detection testing, contact tracing, and quarantining procedures,” he said.

In spite of the lower incidence of virus among children, many are infected with the virus without or before expressing symptoms. Asymptomatic persons, including children, may carry a high viral load and may infect teachers and other workers at school. They may bring the disease home, where they can transmit the virus to parents, grandparents, and other vulnerable family members.

Since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends cleaning surfaces before disinfecting, fogging with disinfectant is not a time-saver. Paper and other absorbent materials must be removed from the space where the fogging is conducted. Since the goal is to provide a quick application method that does not require hands-on treatment, no area-wide fogging or misting is adequate at this time.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) advises retrofitting HVAC systems with the highest filtering efficiency, portable HEPA/UV machines, ”purge/flush” air systems, among other recommendations. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on June 4, 2020 finds, “About half (an estimated 54 percent) of public school districts need to update or replace multiple building systems or features in their schools, according to GAO’s national survey of school districts.”

For the facts on meeting health protection needs for school reopening, see Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet on reopening schools and web page on Disinfectants and Sanitizers for more information.

For those who want to advocate for protective measures prior to school reopening: Tell Congress and Governors that schools must reopen only when safe. Schools must have adequate resources to ensure safety.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2020) Despite pressure to reopen schools, concerns persist about the threat to the health of children, teachers, school staff, and families. There are many complex social, scientific, and logistical issues involved in a decision to reopen schools for in-person teaching. 

>>Tell Congress and Governors that schools must reopen only when safe. Schools must have adequate resources to ensure safety.

Beyond Pesticides joins the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), National Parent and Teacher Association (PTA), and others in calling for a well-thought-out approach to reopening schools only when it is shown that:

• The pandemic is under control in the community—as evidenced, for example, by an average daily community infection rate among those tested for COVID-19 below 5% and a transmission rate below 1%.
• Protections have been put in place to keep the virus under control and protect students and staff. These include accommodations for students and staff at high risk; measures and building retrofits to protect against all forms of transmission; procedures for detecting disease, quarantining, and notification; involvement of families and educators in decisions; monitoring; and enforcement.
• Plans are in place that ensure continuous learning equitably for all students, with training for educators, families, and students in the process of virtual instruction, and access to devices and high-speed internet for every student and teacher.

The risks of reopening schools come from both COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the measures that schools may take to protect students, family members, teachers, and staff. The health risks from the virus to young children (elementary school age) appear to be smaller than the risks to adults, although transmission or spread of the virus to adults is of concern.

Avoid Dangerous Disinfectant Use
As schools closed earlier in the year, attention was focused on virus-contaminated surfaces. While EPA has certified a large number of disinfectants as effective against SARS-CoV-2 (List N), many of these chemicals are hazardous and actually weaken the respiratory, immune, and nervous systems. At the same time, there are many safer disinfectants on EPA’s list that are effective against the virus.

In terms of disinfecting surfaces, where half-lives (an indicator of the time of potential exposure) of the virus range up to 6.8 hours, school districts have been concerned with the costs involved in repeated disinfectant applications. In the interest of disinfecting many classrooms quickly, schools have been investigating, and sometimes investing in, devices that apply disinfectants as a fog or fine mist into the indoor ambient air. Such devices pose special risks, as a result of inhalation or absorption from resulting surface residues.

Fogging does not save labor time. There are several caveats to the use of electrostatic sprayers. First, charged particles may be deposited on the applicator, including in the nose, so personal protective equipment, said to be optional in advertising, should be used. Second, since CDC recommends cleaning first to ensure greater efficacy of disinfecting, it is not clear that spraying disinfectant saves very much time if it is necessary to first clean the surfaces. Paper and other absorbent materials must be removed from the space where the spraying is conducted. Finally, research shows that electrostatic application of disinfectant is not as effective as conventional cleaning and disinfection. In the future, it is possible that electrostatic sprayers may improve, and be subject to independent efficacy review by EPA. The issues of the need to pre-clean, remove papers, and provide PPE will remain. Thus, if the goal is to provide a quick application method that does not require hands-on treatment, then no area-wide spraying is adequate at this time.

Please see Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet on reopening schools and web page on Disinfectants and Sanitizers for more information.

Airborne Transmission of COVID-19
We now know that the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is mainly person-to-person through the air, although spread through contaminated surfaces does play a role. The virus can remain infective as aerosol for at least three hours. A recent study finds, ”replication of SARS-CoV-2 in older children leads to similar levels of viral nucleic acid as adults, but significantly greater amounts of viral nucleic acid are detected in children younger than 5 years.” With average class sizes ranging from 15 to 24 students across elementary and secondary schools, and an average class time of more than 6 hours per day, the potential for spread of the virus can be great in the absence of controls of airborne virus. None of the disinfectants—even those applied as fog—control airborne virus.

The safest way to minimize the chance of contracting COVID-19 through the air is to minimize time spent indoors and practice social distancing with masks both indoors and outdoors. Schools that do decide to reopen indoor classrooms for in-person instruction will need to take precautions to remove viruses from the air. If schools can be retrofitted with engineering controls for air exchange and filtration, virus removal may be maximized. Such removal will still require the use of social distancing and face coverings to minimize exposure from larger droplets that do not remain suspended in the air, as well as surface cleaning and disinfection and handwashing.

Engineering controls include increasing ventilation with outside air, improving natural ventilation, use of evaporative coolers in hot, dry climates, improving the HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) system, and use of a portable air cleaner or purifier. Ultraviolet (UV) light is also being investigated for its effectiveness in deactivating the virus. Critically, it is important to pay attention to patterns of air flow as well as rates of ventilation and purification. One early indicator of the importance of airborne transmission of the virus came from a restaurant in Guangzhou, China, where a presymptomatic person infected ten others who were downwind of the infected person in the air conditioning airflow. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) offers advice to retrofit and improve HVAC systems.

Transportation. Transportation cannot be ignored because it an area of high transmittal with numerous touch points and shared air space, raising similar issues to building spaces. Increased use of private transportation to schools will increase air pollution (which aggravates the respiratory system) and place higher burdens on those who cannot afford it. ASHRAE offers guidance for safer travel and maintenance of systems on transit vehicles.

Reopening schools safely will not be cheap. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on June 4, 2020 finds, “About half (an estimated 54 percent) of public school districts need to update or replace multiple building systems or features in their schools, according to GAO’s national survey of school districts.” The upgrades or retrofits needed in an attempt to protect students and staff from the coronavirus are in addition to GAO-cited repairs, although in some cases—such as the 41% of upgrades needed for HVAC systems—COVID-19 protection could take the place of already-needed upgrades. Nevertheless, additional funding will be required to make facilities and transportation safer and pay for day-to-day maintenance and disinfection. 

>>We call upon Congress to appropriate emergency funding to schools to ensure that all students, teachers, and staff can be protected from the pandemic before returning to school.

Letter to the U.S. Congress and Governors

I am writing because I am very concerned that schools are being pressured to reopen before they can do so safely—and lack the resources to ensure the safety of in-person classes. I am concerned that some schools seem to view unsafe disinfection measures—such as fogging—as necessary shortcuts in view of staffing and funding shortfalls.

I join with the National Education Association, American Federation of Teachers, National Parent and Teacher Association, and others in asking you to do your part to ensure the safety of all in our schools—students, teachers, and other staff.

The safety of all in our schools will require:

* Delaying reopening until the pandemic is under control in the community—as evidenced, for example, by an average daily community infection rate among those tested for COVID-19 below 5% and a transmission rate below 1%.

* Protections to be put in place to keep the virus under control and protect students and staff. Since we now know that the virus is airborne, upgrades to heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) systems will be essential. Transportation must be included.

* Plans—developed in cooperation with the school community—to be in place to ensure continuous learning equitably for all students.

*Federal funding to support upgrades to buildings, buses, and electronic devices and access.

Already funding falls short of that required for the upkeep and upgrade of school buildings. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on June 4, 2020 finds, “About half (an estimated 54 percent) of public school districts need to update or replace multiple building systems or features in their schools, according to GAO’s national survey of school districts.” The upgrades or retrofits needed to protect students and staff from the coronavirus are in addition to those repairs, although in some cases—such as the 41% of upgrades needed for HVAC systems—COVID-19 protection could take the place of already-needed upgrades. Nevertheless, additional funding will be required to make facilities and transportation safer and pay for day-to-day maintenance and disinfection.

Please see information at bp-dc.org/backtoschool.

Thank you for your help with this urgent issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2020) Research out of the Silent Spring Institute identifies 28 registered pesticides linked with development of mammary gland tumors in animal studies. Study authors Bethsaida Cardona and Ruthann Rudel also report that many of the pesticides they investigated behave as endocrine disruptors; breast cancers in humans are significantly influenced by hormones generated by the endocrine system. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges that nine of these 28 pesticide compounds cause mammary tumors, but dismisses the evidence of the other 19. The results of this research, published in the journal Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, evince Beyond Pesticides’ long-standing argument that the risk assessment process used by EPA for its pesticide registration process is substantially inadequate to protect human health.

The co-authors cite, as the catalyst for this research project, a Cape Cod resident’s outreach to the Silent Spring Institute several years ago, asking for information about the herbicide triclopyr because utility companies wanted to spray it on vegetation below local power lines. (The compound has also been used by the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest.) They reviewed more than 400 EPA pesticide documents on the health impacts of many registered pesticides for this research, conducted as part of Silent Spring Institute’s Safer Chemicals Program, which is “developing new cost-effective ways of screening chemicals for their effects on the breast.”

Researcher Ruthann Rudel, MS, an environmental toxicologist and director of research at the institute, notes, “We know pesticides like DDT increase breast cancer risk, so we decided to look into it. After examining pesticide registration documents from EPA, we found two separate studies in which rodents developed mammary gland tumors after being exposed to triclopyr, yet for some reason regulators dismissed the information in their decision not to treat it as a carcinogen.” (It is long established that people exposed to DDT during childhood are at increased risk of developing breast cancer.)

The researchers hypothesized that effects on mammary gland development have been inadequately considered by EPA in its review of animal studies related to pesticide impacts, and that mammary gland tumor development has been improperly dismissed from consideration in the registration process. Ms. Rudel and Ms. Cardona identified 35 different pesticides that impact mammary glands, with some of the endpoints being tumors. The researchers note, in their paper, that 24 of the 35 pesticides that affect mammary gland endpoints are still found in products approved for use in the U.S.

In considering registration of a pesticide, EPA is required — by authorization via FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act — to evaluate risks to human and ecological health. The consideration of potential impacts to human health includes review of both acute toxicity (from a single exposure to a pesticide), and effects of chronic exposure over time. EPA is also supposed to evaluate the carcinogenicity of exposure to pesticides; it ultimately assigns one of the following classifications to any considered pesticide: (1) Carcinogenic to Humans, (2) Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans, (3) Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential, (4) Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential, or (5) Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.

Toxicological assessment typically evaluates one chemical at a time, and in terms of cancer risks, looks primarily at a chemical’s ability to cause damage to DNA. The researchers note, however, that “recent findings in cancer biology show there are many ways chemicals can trigger the development of cancer. For example, chemicals can suppress the immune system, cause chronic inflammation, or disrupt the body’s system of hormones, all of which can lead to the growth of breast [and other kinds of] tumors.”

They write, in their July 2020 paper on the subject study, “It has been previously reported that chemically induced effects on the mammary gland are not assessed in the types of guideline toxicology studies required for pesticide registration, and that when mammary tumors are observed in two-year rodent cancer bioassays they are often dismissed and not carried forward into risk assessments. Some of these decisions may reflect limited appreciation for the interaction of endocrine pathways in breast carcinogenesis.”

Indeed, Silent Spring Institute published another study, in May 2020, that set out a map of the multiple pathways through which environmental chemicals, such as pesticides, can trigger the development of breast cancer. Having used ionizing radiation as a model trigger, co-authors Ruthann Rudel and Jessica Helm suggest that their findings can be generalized to other environmental carcinogens and thus, help regulators identify compounds that increase breast cancer risk.

Ms. Rudel commented, in that earlier 2020 paper, “We know exposure to toxic chemicals can play an important role in the development of breast cancer. Yet, when regulators try to evaluate whether a chemical is harmful or not, the tests they use do not capture the effects on the breast. This gap in testing means potential breast carcinogens are being given the green light for use.”

This recent study brings renewed attention to EPA’s failures in assessing threats to human health from pesticide use. The researchers assert that EPA ignored the cancer risks that these 28 pesticides pose, and that the evidence on which the agency bases its registrations of pesticides should include examination of compounds’ impacts on mammary gland development, and their endocrine disrupting activity.

The study co-authors also recommend that five compounds — because of their extensive use and their potential harms, as evidenced through the study’s analysis — be re-evaluated by EPA: triclopyr, IPBC (3-Iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate, a common “inert” ingredient of glyphosate herbicides), malathion, atrazine, and propylene oxide. Triclopyr is an herbicide used in agriculture and to control vegetation along rights-of-way; IPBC is a preservative in cosmetics; malathion is a common residential and agricultural insecticide that is also used in some lice treatments; atrazine is a frequently used agricultural herbicide; and propylene oxide is a preservative used for cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and food (and has many similarities to ethylene oxide, a known human carcinogen).

The Center for Biological Diversity has also charged that EPA pesticide risk assessment relies far too heavily on industry-produced (and funded) studies to inform its conclusions, and sometimes ignores its own guidelines, never mind scientific evidence, for assessing pesticide risks. A recent example of EPA’s contravention of scientific evidence was its 2019 decision to issue an interim re-registration of glyphosate, which has been repeatedly linked to the development of non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (and other cancers). It did so in the face of widespread consensus among scientists, including findings, by its own Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, supporting the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. Another recent example is EPA’s spring 2020 registration of a demonstrably carcinogenic herbicide, isoxaflutole — a compound listed by EPA as “likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.

These examples, and the inattention to links between pesticides and mammary gland tumor development revealed by the Silent Spring Institute study, are but a few instances of EPA’s “dereliction of duty” during the Trump administration, as the agency has increasingly moved away from the scientific integrity that is supposed to anchor its mission to protect human and environmental health, and toward the agendas of corporate actors, such as the pesticide industry. Beyond Pesticides covered evidence of the erosion of this integrity, which was summarized in a report by the EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in May 2020. The OIG report found that “400 EPA employees had experienced, but did not report, potential violations of EPA’s scientific integrity policy. Further, according to OIG’s findings, dissatisfaction regarding scientific integrity abounds within the agency.”

Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly identified this trend at EPA, and taken many actions to attempt to counter it, including a January 2020 letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, insisting that EPA do the fundamental job with which it has been tasked: use the best science to protect the public and the environment. The letter said: “A top panel of government-appointed scientists, many of them hand-selected by the Trump administration, said on Tuesday that three of President Trump’s most far-reaching and scrutinized proposals to weaken major environmental regulations are at odds with established science.”

In light of the current status of EPA function, the public can take steps to protect human health. Chief among those is to use organic foods and products when at all possible, and to assess products used in the home, garden, and local community for safety. Beyond Pesticides has many resources to help individuals and communities be safer and healthier: check out the website pages on organic agriculture, pesticide alternatives, lawns and landscapes, and children and schools, among others. For more information on the relationships between pesticides and human disease, explore Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

Sources: https://silentspring.org/news/dozens-pesticides-linked-mammary-gland-tumors-animal-studies and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303720720302276

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

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2020) New research finds that a decline in wild pollinator abundance, notably wild bees, limits crop yields in the U.S., according to the study, “Crop Production in the USA Is Frequently Limited by A Lack of Pollinators.” The study results, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, find the annual, national average value of wild bee pollination for the most economically important and pollinator-dependent crops is approximately $1.5 billion, with the total value of all U.S. pollinator-dependent crops equaling $50 billion annually.

The United Nations states that 75% of the 115 top global food crops depend on insect pollination, with one third of all U.S. crops dependent on pollinators, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). However, research finds that many insect populations are declining by half with a third threatened by extinction, including managed and wild pollinators, mainly due to habitat fragmentation, climate change, and extensive pesticide use. With the global reliance on pollinator-dependent crops increasing over the past decades, a lack of pollinators threatens food security and stability. The researchers in the study note, “Our findings show that pollinator declines could translate directly into decreased yields or production for most of the crops studied, and that wild species contribute substantially to [the] pollination of most study crops in major crop-producing regions.”

A majority of global crops rely on pollinators like insects and animals for fertilization, so reports of “biological annihilation” and a 6th mass extinction among mammals, vertebrates, and invertebrate species are concerning for crop production. However, the extent to which pollinators limit crop production and the role of wild pollinators (as opposed to managed) are relatively unknown, especially in chemical-intensive farming. This study adds to the growing body of research supporting pollinators’ economic, social, and environmental global importance, especially for the future of the agricultural industry.

This study aimed to answer the following questions: how ubiquitous is pollination limitation; what contributions do wild bees and honey bees make to crop yields/production; what is the economic value of the contributions? To do this, researchers examined the results of a nationwide empirical study using 131 commercially managed pastures throughout the U.S. and parts of Canada containing the seven most economically valuable, pollinator-dependent crops. These crops include highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), apple (Malus pumila), sweet cherry (Prunus avium), tart cherry (Prunus cerasus), almond (Prunus dulcis), watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) and pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo). Researchers collected data related to pollinator visitation rates, pollinator type (wild or managed), and crop production/yield upon observation of the seven crops. To estimate the frequency of pollinator limitation for each crop, researchers employed an Akaike information criterion (AIC)model. Lastly, researchers determined the economic value given to each crop via pollination using the equation V_pollinator=V_crop⋅D⋅P_pollinator.

This multi-region study finds that wild bees pollinate crops at a similar rate or higher than managed honey bees, even in regions where agricultural practices are chemical-intensive. Out of the seven crops, pollinator limitation impacts five, including apples, blueberries, sweet cherries, tart cherries, and watermelon. Additionally, wild bees deposit more pollen per flower than honey bees for six out of the seven crops, including apples, blueberries, sweet cherries, tart cherries, watermelon, and pumpkin. The nationwide estimate for the annual production value of wild pollinator is over $1.5 billion, with the value of honey bees amounting to $6.4 billion. However, a majority of honey bees’ economic value comes from pollinating almonds, which have one of the highest national values, due to the immense use of managed honey bees (over 2 million hives) required to maintain yield and production. 

The agricultural industry relies on insect pollinators to facilitate fertilization and maintain annual crop yield. Globally, the production of crops dependent on pollinators is worth between $253 and $577 billion yearly. While many commercially managed fields have honey bee colonies on-site, and farmers often rely on this single pollinator species for crop pollination, there is a growing body of research finding that wild pollinators can contribute just as much to managed fields, even with the use of agrochemicals. However, the decline of pollinators like commercially managed honey bees, wild bee species, butterflies, and more, is a cause of concern, especially for future food production and security. Additionally, the reliance on pollinator-dependent crops coupled with the use of single species pollination can work synergistically to increase the risk of food insecurity.

One of the main factors contributing to pollinator population and health decline is the extensive use of chemical pesticides. Over the last decade and a half, increasing scientific evidence shows a clear connection between the role of pesticides in the decline of honey bees and wild pollinators (i.e., wild bees, butterflies, beetles, birds, bats, etc.), alike. There are various bee-toxic pesticides with the main classes of pesticides including, neonicotinoids, sulfoxaflor, pyrethroids, fipronil, and organophosphates. Research shows that residues from neonicotinoids (including seed treatments) and sulfoxaflor accumulate and translocate to pollen and nectar of treated plants, thus increasing the potential risk to pollinators. Both pyrethroids and fipronil impair bee learning, development, and behavioral function, reducing survivability and colony fitness. Organophosphates, mainly employed in mosquito control, are highly toxic to bee and other non-target organisms, causing bee deaths upon exposure to pesticide residues on plant surfaces. Moreover, the sublethal effect of exposure to these pesticides can increase bees’ vulnerability to parasites and pathogens. Realistic levels of exposure to neonicotinoid insecticides impair honey bees’ ability to groom mites off of their bodies, thus increasing the risk of the infectious disease known as deformed wing virus (DWV). Research also finds that low levels of exposure from pesticides make honey bees more susceptible to gut parasites like Nosema ceranae. Although the direct impact pesticides have on pollinators is of great concern, the indirect impacts of pesticides on pollinator habitats are equally troublesome. Pesticide use on mono-crop agriculture and genetically engineered crops can drift onto and destroy adjacent milkweed habitats that monarch butterflies rely on for lodging and reproduction.

Overall, a decline in pollinators has a direct effect on the environment, society, and the economy. Without pollinators, many plant species, both agricultural and nonagricultural, will decline or cease to exist. In turn, the market will falter, as much of the economy (65%) is dependent upon agricultural revenue. With no pollinators to help maintain yields, the economic value of the crop is depressed. However, research finds that organic agriculture boosts local economies as green spaces, like community gardens, will expand viable habitat for pollinators and food sources for people. Low-maintenance gardening and reduced pesticide use can aid in turning gardens organic, and many plants considered weeds (i.e., dandelions, creeping buttercups) are critical for pollinator survival, especially in urban areas where vegetation is sparser.

The debate of relative importance of managed, costly honey bees in comparison to gratis wild bees for pollination is a long-standing conflict. However, this research reconciles the conflicting evidence among wild and managed bees with the finding that wild bees are a more substantial contributor to pollination than honey bees. Although researchers hypothesized wild bees might not fare well pollinating crops in commercially managed fields due to the use of agrochemicals, wild bees remained persistent and making considerable but variable contributions to crop pollination. Furthermore, new evidence of pollinator limitation allows for useful comparison between other previous analyses as researchers studied large commercial farms representative of the majority of U.S. crop production.

Since the threat to pollinator health is widespread, the study researchers advise farmers to adopt practices that conserve and or bolster wild bee populations, like planting wildflowers or using alternative managed pollinators to increase crop yields. Because wild bees are economically important, it underscores the importance of economic investments in pollinator conservation efforts. The study concludes that agricultural industry investments in pesticides and fertilizers would be detrimental without confronting the decline of wild pollinators first. After all, these chemicals lack any real monetary benefits for farmers. While the study suggests, “increasing investment in honeybee colonies” as an “alternative approach to reducing pollinator limitation,” using a single species for crop pollination can have detrimental impacts on species due to genetic uniformity and disease specialty. Additionally, with the Trump Administration approving the use of the bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor in 2019, all bee health remains of concern, especially as the USDA stopped collecting data for the agency’s Honey Bee Colony Survey. Beyond Pesticides states, “Permitting its use and then ceasing to collect and report data on the status of honey bees that are likely to be impacted is not only a recipe for kneecapping the study of bee decline and imperiling the food supply, but also another example of the corruption for which this administration is infamous.”

Pollinator protection policies need improvements, not only to safeguard wild pollinators but the crops they pollinate as well. Beyond Pesticides holds the position that we must move beyond pesticide reduction and commit to complete pesticide elimination in our agricultural system to prevent crop loss presented in this study. Pesticide elimination can alleviate the effect these toxic chemicals have on humans and wildlife. With EPA failing to take the most basic steps to protect declining pollinators, it is up to concerned residents to engage in state and community action and demand change. Moreover, the government should pass policies that eliminate a broad range of pesticides by promoting organic land care.

Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ pollinator impact and take action against the use of pesticides. To find out more about what you can do to protect wild bee and other pollinators, check out information on pollinator-friendly landscapes, and pollinator-friendly seeds, and organic agriculture. Buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic land management eliminates the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Furthermore, regenerative organic agriculture nurtures soil health through organic carbon sequestration, while preventing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmers and farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society B

(Beyond Pesticides, August 5, 2020) Regions of Australia that use a highly toxic rodenticide are home to larger dingoes than areas where the pesticide is not used, according to research published in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Over the course of roughly the last century, dingoes in rodenticide-baited regions have grown by between six and nine percent. While pesticides are well known to induce changes in insect morphology as resistance is developed, this is one of the first studies to find effects on a large vertebrate carnivore.

To make their determination, researchers began measuring the size of dingo skulls, which can be used as a proximate for body size, in areas where the rodenticide compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) was and was not historically used. Skull analysis relied primarily on historical specimens stored in museums throughout Australia.  

“Skulls from the baited regions grew by about four millimetres since poison baiting was introduced,” says Michael Letnic, PhD, lead author of the paper and professor in conservation biology and ecosystem restoration at the University of New South Wales Science. “This equates to roughly a kilogram [2.2 lbs] in body mass.”

While size increases were consistently seen in baited regions, dingoes in areas where 1080 was not used showed no discernible change. This phenomenon was seen in both males and females, though researchers note that in certain areas female dingoes showed increases slightly larger than males.

Researchers proposed a range of ideas as to why the size increases occurred. “The most likely theory is that dingoes who survive baiting campaigns have less competition for food,” says co-author Associate Professor Mathew Crowther, PhD, from the University of Sydney. “With more food in abundance, dingoes’ physical growth is less restricted.”

This theory focuses on the influence of a predator/prey cycle, whereby food availability may lead to more food and increased fitness for dingoes able to avoid 1080 exposure. Dr. Crowther also notes that the pesticide may be causing specific pressures on the dingoes themselves. “Poison baiting campaigns could be favouring the survival of larger dingoes,” says Dr. Crowther. “Smaller dingoes need less poison for a lethal dose, so are more likely to be killed by baiting. This leaves the larger dingoes to survive and breed.”

Scientists indicate that they worked to control for potential confounders. “We only tested dingoes in areas that have very low dog hybridisation rates, making it highly unlikely that dog genetics are contributing to the size growth,” says Dr. Letnic. Climate change was also dismissed, as warming conditions would be more likely to decrease, rather than increase, body size.

Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate or sodium monofluoroacetate) is a water-soluble, odorless, colorless, tasteless, and lethally toxic poison with no antidote; a single teaspoon could kill as many as 100 adult humans. It causes basic cellular process to fail, leading to gross organ failure and a very painful death. In the United States, compound 1080 was banned by the Nixon administration in the 1970s, but reintroduced in the Reagan administration for use in “livestock protection collars.” These, collars, worn on the necks of domestic animals like cows, are released if a predator pieces the collar while attempting to take down the animal.

“The reaction to this finding may be to add more poison to the baits, or to find a new poison,” says Dr. Letnic. “But, eventually, the cycle will start again.”

Phenotypic changes from pesticide exposure are predictable but can be difficult to discern without scientific investigation. “Baiting is changing dingoes, so it could be changing other animal populations,” says Dr. Letnic. Prior studies have found that herbicides like glyphosate can induce morphological changes in amphibian species, or cause them to produce more venom, by activating a predator response.

As Dr. Letnic notes, “Animals respond to human interventions, whether directly or indirectly. The changes could well be adaptive, and we must think about that.” Past research shows that rodenticides have the ability to act as “super predators” in an ecosystem, placing an outsized check on a range of species and imperiling ecosystem health. Both rodenticides and other dangerous and indiscriminate wildlife poisons, like M-44 cyanide bombs, threaten wild spaces.

Help eliminate these poisons from the environment by contacting your elected officials and urging they support the Chemical Poisons Reduction Act, introduced by Rep Peter DeFazio, which would permanently ban compound 1080 and the use of cyanide bombs. For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to predators and other wild animals, see Beyond Pesticides’ Wildlife program page.

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

Source: Science Daily press release, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

(Beyond Pesticides, August 4, 2020) Last month Massachusetts lawmakers finalized, and the Governor subsequently signed, emergency legislation S.2757, aimed at revamping the state’s approach to mosquito management. The final version of this mosquito reform bill continues to include certain problematic provisions, but nonetheless represents a significant shift from an initial proposal that would have allowed the blanket spraying of mosquito adulticides throughout the Commonwealth with little oversight, notification, or transparency. “Though many cooks had a hand in the process, the resulting final bill was strengthened by advocates,” said state Senator Jo Comerford, Chair of the state’s Joint Committee on Public Health, in an emailed statement to supporters. “I’m pleased that we were able to build in strong protections for both the environment and human health.”

The original bill was filed by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker (R) under emergency legislative provisions, requiring state lawmakers to act within a set period of time. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) had indicated that this year would bring higher risks of mosquito-borne disease, particularly Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE), for which outbreaks generally last two or three years.

The state saw 12 human cases of EEE and four deaths from the disease in 2019; EEE was also confirmed in nine livestock animals. Thus far in 2020, sporadic reports of EEE have been found, but the state considers the current risk level “low.”

While EEE and other mosquito-borne diseases like West Nile Virus do pose a public health threat, it is critical that the response focus on achieving the highest level of public safety without further compromising resident health through the use of highly toxic adulticides (insecticide sprays that target adult mosquitoes). To that end, a coalition of advocacy groups released a fact sheet, and urged state lawmakers improve safeguards within the legislation. A Dear Colleague letter circulated by State Representative Carolyn Dykema and State Senator Adam Hinds echoed many of the coalition’s concerns and stressed the need for broader reforms.

The updated legislation ultimately passed by lawmakers improves transparency around making public health determinations, requires 48 hours prior notice to the public before mosquito spraying, sets a process to allow people and communities to opt-out of spraying, and sunsets all new powers within the bill after two years. Most importantly, over the course of the next two years, the legislation establishes a Mosquito Control for the Twenty-First Century Task Force, which will be overseen by a range of stakeholders. As Senator Comerford, who helped push for the task force, wrote, “Our current mosquito management system is a relic from the 1950s, and I am hopeful that the Task Force recommendations will lead to a more modern system that recognizes the latest evidence about effective mosquito management and environmental protection.”

In the meantime, the bill will provide outsized powers to state officials to conduct mosquito spray campaigns throughout the state. However, the desire to conduct broad, long-lasting spray campaigns may be tempered by a complaint filed with the state Inspector General by the watchdog group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), regarding the past efficacy of the Commonwealth’s adulticide-focused program.

Beyond Pesticides and many coalition partners had hoped to see further improvements in the legislation regarding the setting of strict thresholds for toxic pesticide use, and a greater focus on public education and least-toxic larvaciding, but will have to urge the task force to include these important provisions. Greater transparency of inert ingredients, and broader opt-out opportunities for beekeepers will also be important points the mosquito task force will need to address.

While pesticides are often billed as a silver bullet for mosquito control, such claims are rarely, if ever,` true. A program that focuses on killing adult mosquitoes after they are hatched, flying, and biting people and animals, is the least effective approach to mosquito management. It requires a knock-down rate of 90% of mosquitoes in a given area to achieve adequate control.  Research finds that aerosol plumes from truck mounted ultra-low volume spraying fail to make adequate contact with target mosquitoes at the rate necessary to achieve disease reduction.  And while adulticides may indiscriminately reduce some level of flying insect abundance, larval mosquitoes remain.  Overarching concerns regarding efficacy, repeated spraying of mosquitoes is likely to foster pesticide resistance. 

Abating mosquito-borne disease is best achieved through a science-based approach that prioritizes preventive measures. These measures include surveillance, monitoring, public education on eliminating breeding sites and personal protective actions, consideration of local ecology, habitat manipulation, larviciding with biological materials, full disclosure of all pesticide use, advance notice of spraying, and opt-out opportunities for local residents. Communities, such as Washington DC and Boulder, Colorado, are spotlighted for progressive and ecologically sensitive approaches to mosquito management that do not focus primarily on adulticide use.

For more information on what an effective community mosquito management approach looks like, as well as tools to enact these changes in your community, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Mosquito Management and Insect Borne Diseases.

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

Source: Framingham Source

(Beyond Pesticides, August 3, 2020) The effects of pesticide use are important, yet ignored, factors affecting people of color (POC) who face elevated risk from Covid-19 as essential workers, as family members of those workers, and because of the additional or cumulative risk that pesticides pose. As a part of this deadly combination, exposure to pesticides occurs at work, in community parks, schools and playing fields, and through food residues. EPA is ignoring the real hazards resulting from a combination of exposures that is reflected in the statistics that have emerged—with farmworkers suffering a rate of coronavirus five times higher and landscapers three times higher than community rates. Why is this the case? Because pesticide exposure weakens the respiratory, immune, and nervous system and makes those exposed more susceptible to the coronavirus. 

EPA has the power to immediately, on an emergency basis, adjust allowable pesticide use and exposure, recognizing that we have alternative practices and products to meet food production and landscaping needs.

Tell Congress to require EPA to examine the contribution of pesticide exposure to Covid-19 and protect those at greatest risk, people of color.

Farmworkers and landscapers have been deemed essential employees during the coronavirus outbreak, but without mandated safety protocols or government assistance, have experienced an explosion in Covid-19 cases. Workers in these industries are primarily Latinx people of color, many of whom are undocumented. According to a report published by the University of California Los Angeles, Latinx Californians aged 50 to 64 have died from the virus at rate five times higher than white people of the same age.

Most people in the U.S. suffer from one or more chronic conditions identified as putting people at increased risk of dying from Covid-19. The diseases, which involve disruption of the immune system, include metabolic diseases of obesity, diabetes, liver, kidney, and cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases including asthma, allergy, emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), in addition to autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and lupus. The chronic inflammation induced by these diseases makes a dangerous heightened response to coronavirus more likely. 

While metabolic, respiratory, and autoimmune disease is widespread, the poor working conditions to which farmworkers and landscapers are subject put them at disproportionate risk of pesticide-induced diseases. Occupational exposure to pesticides is, in fact, a form of institutionalized racism, putting people of color at disproportionate risk of death from Covid-19. 

It is essential that when EPA weighs risks and benefits of pesticide use, it does not allow risks to workers and people of color to be ignored or undervalued. An appraisal of the contribution of pesticide use and exposure to health outcomes of Covid-19 is urgently needed. 

Tell Congress to require EPA to examine the contribution of pesticide exposure to Covid-19 and protect those at greatest risk, people of color.

Letter to Congress

I am writing out of concern for disproportionate risks to people of color arising from pesticide exposure during this pandemic. Please take emergency steps to require EPA to examine the contribution of pesticide exposure to the severity of Covid-19.

The effects of pesticide use are important, yet ignored, factors affecting people of color who face elevated risk from Covid-19 as essential workers, as family members of those workers, and because of the additional or cumulative risk that pesticides pose. As a part of this deadly combination, exposure to pesticides occurs at work, in community parks, schools and playing fields, and through food residues. EPA is ignoring the real hazards resulting from a combination of exposures—reflected in the statistics showing that farmworkers suffer a rate of coronavirus five times higher and landscapers three times higher than community rates. Why? Because pesticide exposure weakens the respiratory, immune, and nervous system and makes those exposed more susceptible to the coronavirus.

Farmworkers and landscapers have been deemed essential employees during the coronavirus outbreak, but without mandated safety protocols or government assistance, have experienced an explosion in Covid-19 cases. Workers in these industries are primarily Latinx people of color, often undocumented. According to a report published by the University of California Los Angeles, Latinx Californians aged 50 to 64 have died from the virus at rate five times higher than white people of the same age.

Most people in the U.S. suffer from one or more chronic conditions identified as putting people at increased risk of dying from Covid-19. The diseases, which involve disruption of the immune system, include metabolic diseases of obesity, diabetes, liver, kidney, and cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases including asthma, allergy, emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), in addition to autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and lupus. The chronic inflammation induced by these diseases makes more likely a dangerous heightened response to coronavirus.

While metabolic, respiratory, and autoimmune disease is widespread, the poor working conditions to which farmworkers and landscapers are subject put them at disproportionate risk of pesticide-induced diseases. Occupational exposure to pesticides may be seen as institutionalized racism, putting black and brown people at disproportionate risk of death from Covid-19.

Farmworkers and landscapers have been deemed essential employees during the coronavirus outbreak, but without mandated safety protocols, adequate regulatory review, or government assistance, have experienced an explosion in Covid-19 cases. Workers in these industries are primarily Latinx people of color, many of whom are undocumented. According to a report published by the University of California Los Angeles, Latinx Californians aged 50 to 64 have died from the virus at rate five times higher than white people of the same age.

It is essential that when EPA weighs risks and benefits of pesticide use, it does not allow risks to workers and people of color to be ignored or undervalued. An appraisal of the contribution of pesticide use and exposure to health outcomes of Covid-19 is urgently needed. Please mandate EPA to perform an emergency assessment of the contribution of pesticide exposure to Covid-19 vulnerability. To highlight the urgency of this assessment, EPA should be given three months to put in place temporary measures based on scientific literature and advice of medical personnel, with permanent measures to be codified within a year.

Thank you for your attention to this urgent issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2020) On July 22, the New York State Legislature passed Senate 6502 / Assembly 732-B — a bill that would ban the use of all glyphosate-based herbicides on state properties. The bill now awaits Governor Andrew Cuomo’s signature, which would make it law effective December 31, 2021. Beyond Pesticides considers this a hopeful development in the glyphosate “saga” and has urged the governor ought to sign it. Nevertheless, such piecemeal, locality-by-locality initiatives represent mere “drops” of protection in an ocean of toxic chemical pesticides to which the U.S. public is exposed. A far more effective, protective solution is the much-needed transition from chemical-intensive agriculture and other kinds of land management to organic systems that do not use toxic pesticides.

The bill — titled “An Act to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to prohibiting the use of glyphosate on state property” — was introduced in 2019 and sponsored by New York State Assembly Member Linda B. Rosenthal (D/WF-New York) and State Senator José Serrano. It would add a new subdivision to section 12 of the state’s environmental conservation law, proscribing “any state department, agency, public benefit corporation or any pesticide applicator employed thereby as a contractor or subcontractor to apply glyphosate on state property.” More than 50,000 gallons of glyphosate-based herbicides were applied in public spaces across the entirety of the state, as reported in 2019 by Bronx.com.

Senator Serrano said of the bill, “Our parks, playgrounds and picnic areas are an oasis for New Yorkers, and have particularly become safe havens during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important that we protect the health and safety of workers, families, and pets by proactively eliminating the use of potentially harmful chemicals like glyphosate in our public spaces, and by finding safe alternatives that will not risk the health of New Yorkers and our environment.”

Assembly Member Rosenthal commented: “Weeds are unsightly, but cancer is a killer, and we should not wait for a child or anyone to become sick to take action to protect them against a serious potential risk. Parents don’t want their children exposed to dangerous, toxic chemicals when they play in state parks, and groundskeepers and farm workers should not be exposed to potentially deadly chemicals while doing their job. Prohibiting the use of glyphosate on State property makes good sense: doing so will protect the public health and environment while shielding the State from millions of dollars in potential liability associated with its use. With safer alternatives available, there is no reason the State should be using a potential carcinogen to kill weeds.”

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup^TM, Monsanto’s (now Bayer’s) ubiquitous and widely used weed killer; it is very commonly used with Monsanto’s companion seeds for a variety of staple crops (e.g., soybeans, cotton, corn, canola, and others). These glyphosate-tolerant seeds are genetically engineered to be glyphosate tolerant; growers apply the herbicide and expect that it will kill weeds and not harm the crop. Roundup has been marketed as effective and safe, but, in reality, its use delivers human and ecosystem harms. Exposures to it threaten human health (including transgenerational impacts) and the health of numerous organisms. In addition, many target plants are developing resistance to the compound, making it increasingly ineffective as a weed killer, and resulting in ever-more-intensive pesticide use. Glyphosate was classified in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a probable human carcinogen.

Because children spend ample time in and on the kinds of turf that are often treated with glyphosate, and are more likely than adults to inhale, or ingest, or incur other kinds of exposures from grass and soil, Beyond Pesticides and many experts are very concerned about the use of this toxic chemical on such sites. Indeed, a study by the Center for Environmental Health found that children carry significantly higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies than do their parents.

Legislative and regulatory moves on the parts of states, counties, cities, and towns, like this bill in New York State: (1) happen in the context of, and in part because of, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) abdication of its protective responsibility to the public; (2) are often successfully challenged on the grounds that “higher level” pre-emption supersedes local laws and regulations; and (3) tackle the problem one chemical compound in one locality at a time — an approach that Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman has called “whack-a-mole.”

In addition, federal pesticide regulations in the Trump era have intentionally been made less robust and narrower in scope, and enforcement even of those has been anemic. That said, for decades, EPA has for decades aimed to “mitigate” risks rather than exercise the principle of Precaution in rulemaking. In July 2020, Beyond Pesticides described “the folly of the federal regulatory system’s attempts to ‘mitigate’ risks of pesticide exposure through small and piecemeal rules. Given the many thousands of chemical pesticides on the market, the complexity of trying to ensure ‘relative’ safety from them (especially considering potential synergistic interactions, as well as interactions with genetic and ‘lifestyle’ factors), and the heaps of cash that fund corporate interests . . . via lobbyists and trade associations, there is one conclusion. ‘Mitigation’ of pesticide risks is a nibble around the edges of a pervasive poison problem.” All of these failings have been made worse by an administration devoted to reducing or eliminating regulation on corporate actors.

There is no guarantee that Governor Cuomo will sign Senate 6502 / Assembly 732-B into law; in early 2020, he vetoed legislation to ban chlorpyrifos, and instead issued an immediate ban on aerial application, and proposed a regulatory phase-out to ban all uses by 2021. As the chief executive official of the state, he could — In addition to signing bills that come from the Legislature — take executive action to, for example, ban use of the most dangerous pesticides. Beyond Pesticides believes that the governor is not living up to his responsibility to protect the safety and well-being of New York State residents and environment from the dangers of chemical pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides reported on a bill for a local law proposed in 2019 in New York City Council (Intro 1524) that would prohibit city agencies from applying any chemically based pesticide to any property owned or leased by the City of New York. In 2019, Bronx.com reports, the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation used upward of 500 gallons of glyphosate on 28,000+ acres of parks, playgrounds, beaches, athletic fields, recreational facilities, and other sites to “control” weeds. In its January 2020 hearing before the council’s Committee on Health, the bill was ultimately “laid over by committee” — a term that can mean a bill will be taken up the next legislative day, but which also can be a euphemism for “how a bill gets killed by ignoring it.”

In covering that bill, Beyond Pesticides wrote about the context in which New York City and other localities have increasingly turned to local action: “The issue is made more urgent, for New York City and for many, many municipalities and states, because most environmental regulation below the federal level in the U.S relies heavily on the determinations of EPA. Under the Trump administration, federal environmental regulation generally, and regulation of pesticides, in particular, have been dramatically weakened; this administration and its EPA clearly advantage agrochemical and other industry interests over the health of people and ecosystems. The consequent loss of public trust in federal agencies broadly, and EPA in particular, reinforce the need for localities to step up and protect local and regional residents and environments.” Currently, the bill is being held up by the Speaker’s office.

Along with the bill banning use of glyphosate on state property, the New York State Legislature passed S.5579a / A.5169, which, when signed, will mandate that written notices and signs informing the public of pesticide use in commercial and residential settings be printed in English, Spanish, and any other locally relevant languages. Senator Serrano commented, “It’s critical that all New Yorkers are aware of any warnings regarding pesticide use and application in their neighborhoods. . . . [This bill will ensure] that every resident can be adequately informed of pesticide use in their communities and take steps to ensure the health and safety of their loved ones.”

In light of the increasing evidence of the harm glyphosate can cause, some countries have stepped up restrictions or instituted bans on use of the compound, including Italy, Germany, France, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Bermuda, Fiji, Luxembourg, and Austria. A growing number of jurisdictions in some countries have taken similar actions. In the U.S., counties, towns, and cities, including Los Angeles, Seattle, and Miami, and many others in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Washington State, and more, have banned glyphosate applications on public lands.

Beyond Pesticides urges a federal ban on the use of glyphosate herbicides, and supports interim efforts of localities to protect their own communities — and those who work directly with these chemical — as New York State is beginning to do through this bill (S.6502 / A.732-B) that would prohibit glyphosate use on all state properties. It is unfortunate that, if signed, the law would not go into effect until the very last day of 2021, but Governor Cuomo should nevertheless immediately sign the bill into law.

The solution to the current federal “whack-a-mole” approach to mitigating the impacts of glyphosate (and all pesticide) use is a wholesale transition away from the chemical dousing of public lands, agricultural fields, and all manner of maintained turf. Organic approaches to pest and weed problems in agriculture and on other lands and landscapes (and in homes, gardens, buildings, et al.) do not involve toxic pesticides, and avoid the health and ecological damage they cause.

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. Beyond Pesticides encourages the public to contact federal, state, and local officials to demand real protection from toxic pesticides, perhaps beginning with a ban on the use of glyphosate on public lands, as New York is attempting to do. Find contact information for federal Representatives here, and for Senators here. Contact information for states and localities is typically available on state and city/town websites.

Source: https://bronx.com/new-york-state-poised-to-ban-use-of-glyphosate-on-state-land/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, July 30, 2020) Simultaneous exposure to pesticides and noise from agricultural machinery increases farmworkers, risk of hearing loss, according to the study, “Hearing Loss in Agricultural Workers Exposed to Pesticides and Noise,” published in the journal Annals of Work Exposures and Health. Hearing loss is the 3rd most common health issue in the U.S., affecting eight million Americans. Although specific conditions like age, illness, and genetics, can mediate hearing loss, research suggests other factors can induce auricle (ear) damage, including medications, exposure to toxic chemicals (including pesticides), and loud, ongoing noise. Past studies find an association between hearing loss and pesticide exposure or noise exposure, alone. However, this study is one of the first to associate hearing loss with the additive effect to concurrent, persistent pesticide exposure, and noise.

This research is significant as 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, for farmers and everyone alike. Researchers in the study note, “[I]t is necessary to understand what work-related factors are contributing to this high prevalence of hearing loss in [Thai] agricultural workers in order to develop effective interventions and policies.”

In agriculture, farmworkers and their children suffer elevated rates of injuries and illnesses, including hearing loss, various cancers, neurological disorders, and respiratory diseases. Additionally, research suggests that chemical-intensive agriculture’s high pesticide use puts farmers and farmworkers at greater risk of pesticide exposure than other occupations. With agricultural workers experiencing a higher frequency of hearing loss than other professions, an understanding of the etiology of non-age-related hearing loss associated with pesticide exposure is important to adequate pesticide regulation. 

To calculate the metrics for pesticide exposure (intensity x duration x frequency) and cumulative noise exposure for farmers, researchers examined 163 chemical-intensive conventional and 172 organic farmers using a survey. The survey contained data about demographic characteristics, noise-related activities, and agricultural machinery use. Additionally, conventional farmers diarized maintained a diary of their pesticide use every day for a year. Hearing assessments employed pure tone audiometric testing for all participants, using a mean hearing threshold in the low-frequency band (0.5–2 kHz) and high-frequency band (3–6 kHz) for analysis. Lastly, researchers compared pesticide and noise metrics to the average hearing threshold in each frequency band using linear regression models for each ear to determine association.

After adjusting for confounding variables, this research finds that years of exposure to pesticides in conventional farming and noise from agricultural machinery increases the average hearing threshold (> 25 dB HL threshold) in the high-frequency band. An increase in threshold in high-frequencies results in a higher prevalence of abnormal hearing (clinical hearing loss) as 93 and 78 percent of those with high-frequency hearing loss also have a low-frequency hearing loss in the right and left ear, respectively. Specifically, the highest level of cumulative pesticide exposure stems from organophosphates (OP)—derived from World War II nerve agents)—which are significantly associated with hearing loss in the high-frequency band, according to the study. Based on the regression models, the results support the study’s hypothesis that that pesticide and noise have an additive effect on hearing.

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 acutely and chronically affect most senses, loss of auditory function is unique as it is solely a chronic side effect of pesticide exposure. Previous occupational (work-related) studies suggest that organophosphate insecticides increase the risk of vision or hearing loss. A 2018 study finds that pesticides can increase the risk of occupational hearing loss in farmworkers. Tobacco growers exposed to pesticides display symptoms of central auditory dysfunction, according to a 2016 study. However, not all pesticides-related hearing loss is occupational and has implications for the health of children and pregnant women. Prenatal exposure to the OP chlorpyrifos disrupts hearing and vision maturation in infants. Furthermore, research finds that legacy organochlorine pesticides (OCP) (banned for use) have ototoxic (toxic to the ears) effects, as prenatal OCP exposure causes hearing deficits in infants.

In addition to understanding how pesticides impact the five senses, it is vital to consider the ways that pesticides can enter the body and cause harm. Three commons ways pesticides enter the body are via contact (on the skin, eyes), ingestion (mouth), and inhalation (mouth, nose), with the most common route of exposure via absorption through contact with the skin. Pesticide inhalation from vapors and fine particles in spray solution can severely damage the nose, throat, and lung tissue as the rapid absorption of pesticides increases the risk of respiratory problems. Oral exposure to pesticides via ingestion can be most severe as symptoms include damage to the gastrointestinal tract, repository depression, and even death. The chemical state of the pesticide (i.e., solid, liquid, or gas) affects the probability of bodily penetration as pesticides in liquid or gas formulas can enter the body through all exposure routes (inhalation, ingestion, contact). Although solid formula pesticides have a lower probability of entering the body, they can still enter the body via the same manner as gas, through volatilization, and liquid; they have to be small enough and remain on the skin long enough to do so. Once these chemicals enter the body, the bloodstream can readily absorb them, causing disease-inducing issues like oxidative stress and endocrine disruption.

This study adds to the expanding volume of research linking pesticide exposure to ototoxicity as statistic models demonstrate that cumulative pesticide exposure via increased pesticide use is a risk factor for hearing loss. Some research explains the underlying mechanism of pesticide-induced hearing loss because of injury to the stereocilia (inner ear cilia like organelles) in the organ of Corti, or the organ responsible for hearing. Additional studies suggest pesticides, like OPs, induce damage to the cochlea (which houses the organ of Corti) by generating reactive oxygen species (ROS) that contribute to oxidative stress. Although this study suggests pesticides and noise exposure on hearing is additive (two independent factors with the same effect), other studies find these factors to be synergistic, with more vigorous combined consequences, as the amount of time to induce hearing loss decreases upon exposure. With evidence suggesting chronic pesticide exposure and use causes a decline in the functionality of the five senses, advocates say that stricter policy regulations are vital to mitigate the adverse impacts not only on the senses both on the entire human body.

Hearing loss is an increasingly common health issue, plaguing people around the globe. Although genetics, other ailments, and prolonged noise exposure contribute to the decline in auditory function, pesticides, independently and in conjunction with other factors, exacerbate the decline in hearing function. Studies related to pesticides and auditory function can aid in future research to understand the underlying mechanisms that cause hearing loss, especially in essential occupations where hearing loss is more common (e.g., agriculture). With the Trump administration dismantling many environmental regulations, private sector understanding of how exposure to environmental pollutants, like pesticides, can increase the risk of developing chronic health issues, is critical to corporate action—especially if regulatory rollbacks increase the persistence of environmental pollutants.

Policies should enforce stricter pesticide regulations and increase research on the long-term impacts of pesticide exposure. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms, pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on sexual and reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Furthermore, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. 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 is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

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

Source: Annals of Work Exposures and Health