(Beyond Pesticides, April 27, 2020) Federal guidance and orders by most Governors have identified “landscaping” as an essential activity that is permitted in spite of stay at home or shelter in place requirements.

Tell Your Governor that Lawn Care Pesticides are Not Essential and Increase Risk of COVID-19.

Most states follow some variation of guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum on Identification of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers During COVID-19 Response, in determining which industries are “essential” and can therefore remain in operation. DHS guidance identifies as essential, “Workers such as plumbers, electricians, exterminators, builders, contractors, HVAC Technicians, landscapers, and other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintaining the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences, businesses and buildings such as hospitals, senior living facilities, any temporary construction required to support COVID-19 response.”

While some of the services provided by landscapers and exterminators may be necessary to maintaining safety, sanitation, and essential operations, pesticide application for cosmetic lawn care purposes is not. The hazards of pesticides may be amplified during this pandemic. Threats to the immune and respiratory systems posed by pesticides are likely to make those exposed more susceptible to the coronavirus. Governors should designate as essential outdoor maintenance, including vegetation, only when necessary to prevent spoliation, avoid imminent damage, or address emergency repairs. No pesticide application is essential unless it is necessary to address a public health emergency.

Tell Your Governor that Lawn Care Pesticides are Not Essential and Increase Risk of COVID-19.

Letter to Governor

As you seek to protect residents of our state from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important that you allow essential work to continue, but do not allow activities that may make us more susceptible to the disease.

Most states follow some variation of guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “Memorandum on Identification of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers During COVID-19 Response,” in determining which industries are “essential” and can therefore remain in operation. DHS guidance identifies as essential, “Workers such as plumbers, electricians, exterminators, builders, contractors, HVAC Technicians, landscapers, and other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintaining the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences, businesses and buildings such as hospitals, senior living facilities, any temporary construction required to support COVID-19 response.”

While some of the services provided by landscapers and exterminators may be necessary to maintaining safety, sanitation, and essential operations, pesticide application for cosmetic lawn care purposes is not [bp-dc.org/landcare]. The hazards of pesticides may be amplified during this pandemic. Threats to the immune and respiratory systems posed by pesticides are likely to make those exposed more susceptible to the coronavirus [bp-dc.org/coronavirus].

Please designate as essential outdoor maintenance, including vegetation, only when necessary to prevent spoliation, avoid imminent damage, or address emergency repairs. No pesticide application is essential unless it is necessary to address a public health emergency.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2020) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevent (CDC) has released a study showing a sharp increase—62% in some cases—in calls to poison hotlines about exposures to toxic household cleaners and disinfectants. This poisoning comes with the advent of the novel Coronavirus pandemic, as public health and government officials, and many media outlets have sensibly recommended that people regularly disinfect “high touch” surfaces and objects in their homes and other surroundings, but have not issued warnings on toxic effects nor the availability of lower toxicity or least-toxic products. Compliance with cleaning (sanitizers) and disinfection recommendations is an important public and personal health undertaking, but in this Covid-19 rigor lies a poison problem: the toxicity, as Beyond Pesticides has explained, of some cleaning and disinfecting products that are permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for sale and use. There are safer ways to disinfect those light switches, TV remotes, doorknobs, faucets, etc.

First, a basic distinction between cleaning (also called sanitizing)and disinfecting: EPA offers definitions of the differences. “Cleaning is done with water, a cleaning product, and scrubbing. Cleaning does not kill bacteria, viruses, or fungi, which are generally referred to as ‘germs.’ Cleaning products are used to remove germs, dirt, and other organic material by washing them down the drain.” Disinfectants, on the other hand, “are chemicals that work by killing germs. These chemicals are also called antimicrobial pesticides.” The admonitions to disinfect began in earnest in March 2020, as states, localities, and federal agencies, such as CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the National Institute of Health’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) ramped up messaging about such disinfection.

The CDC study monitored call frequencies about such exposures for the January through March 2020 period, and found elevations in such calls compared with the same periods in 2018 and 2019. Call data were taken from the National Poison Data System (NPDS), the CDC, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers, to which calls to local poison control centers are reported. The study analysis shows a 20.4% increase in calls related to exposures to household cleaners, and a 16.4% increase in those for disinfectant exposures.

The study reports that, “The daily number of calls to poison centers increased sharply at the beginning of March 2020 for exposures to both cleaners and disinfectants.” Calls about exposures to bleach products represented 62% of the increase from 2019; inhalation was the primary exposure route in all three years, and clocked in with a 108.8% increase, 2020 over 2019, for products in the disinfectant category.

The study co-authors note that the actual exposure incidents were likely higher than the reported call numbers because undoubtedly, not everyone who is exposed reports to a poisoning hotline. In addition, no absolute correlation between incident call spikes and Covid-19 messaging could be made because hotlines did not inquire if the exposure was a function of Covid cleaning or disinfecting. But the co-authors believe the correlation between increased poisoning reports and increased use of these products “was likely because the timing corresponded to the increase in media coverage of the coronavirus, as well as stay-at-home orders and other instructions from public health officials.”

The researchers also acknowledge that insufficient vigilance over children’s access to these products is part of the story, as it always is in household poisonings of children. Although increases in poisonings happened across all age groups, “exposures among children aged ≤5 years consistently represented a large percentage of total calls in the 3-month study period for each year.” David Gummin, M.D., the medical director of the Wisconsin Poison Center, commented, “With every American trying to stay Covid-free, people are not only utilizing cleaners and hand sanitizers at record rates, but also trying to identify alternate mechanisms to keep things sanitized. The important thing is to keep them locked up and out of the reach of children.”

The study report also warns that mixing certain compounds can accidentally create dangerous chemical compounds and gases, as one study subject did when she combined bleach and vinegar, making toxic chlorine gas. It should be noted that chlorine gas, when inhaled, can combine with moisture in the lungs to create hydrochloric acid, which can cause severe damage to lungs; inhalation of other gases, through which many household exposures occur, can also damage lungs. Other “no go” mixtures of common household cleaning products include: ammonia + bleach, which creates toxic chloramine vapors; bleach + isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol, which yields chloroform; and hydrogen peroxide + vinegar, which creates corrosive parecetic acid.

No one wants to use products that can threaten health, of course. But what EPA — which regulates antimicrobial surface disinfectants — considers safe is best viewed with circumspection. EPA has a long history of permitting use of chemical pesticide compounds that pose risks to human health, including children’s, as well as to the health of other organisms and ecosystems. In late March, EPA’s pesticide program allowed 70 new disinfectants to be marketed and sold — on top of the 281 disinfectants previously permitted. The agency did so primarily by relaxing oversight on so-called “inert” or other ingredients that are not disclosed on product labels and are often highly toxic.

Beyond Pesticides wrote, late in March, about the use of disinfecting products during the pandemic: “There is tremendous pressure to use toxic disinfectants, despite the availability of safer products. In fact, while [CDC] is recommending 70% alcohol for surface disinfection, [EPA’s] Office of Pesticide Programs is advising the use of unnecessarily toxic substances, and reducing standards that govern their allowance on the market.” See the Beyond Pesticides website page, “Protecting Yourself from Covid-19 (coronavirus) without Toxic Sanitizers and Disinfectants,” which spells out a number of the compounds to be avoided.

During this Covid-19 pandemic, people need to be especially cautious about the safety of their environments, including the safety of products introduced to households. In reducing the risk of any viral (or bacterial) infection, it is important that the precautions taken don’t increase health risks to anyone, but certainly, to the more vulnerable, such as those with underlying health issues, immunocompromised people, and older folks.

There are other practices, outside of individual households, that represent particular risks during this pandemic. For example, pesticides used for turf management, mosquito control, or agricultural pests can have negative impacts on respiratory function. Given that the Covid-19 virus tends to attach itself especially to receptors in the lungs, heart, and gastrointestinal tract, those with premorbid lung conditions, or cardiopulmonary or cardiovascular diseases (and other conditions), may be at particular risk that should not be exacerbated through such exposures.

Services that homeowners might usually use, such as those that apply lawn chemicals or mosquito or tick control chemicals, should not be used; likewise, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides used to control garden pests should be avoided. Beyond Pesticides recently sued the chemical applicator company, TruGreen, for misrepresenting the safety of the toxic chemicals with which it treats lawns. It also urged states to identify the spraying of toxic chemicals in or near residential areas (e.g., for agricultural purposes, lawn treatments, or mosquito control) as non-essential and hazardous, noting that “widespread exposure to lawn pesticides, which are immune system and respiratory toxicants, can elevate serious risk factors associated with Covid-19.” Eliminating such applications during the pandemic crisis can reduce exposures to compounds that may worsen impacts of infection with this virus.

Beyond Pesticides recently identified farmworkers as another group of people at higher risk during the pandemic because of their vocational exposures. Such workers are exposed through their jobs to pesticides that are respiratory irritants linked with asthmatic conditions — making them less likely to recover if they do contract Covid-19. In addition, agricultural enterprises that use pesticides are facing the same shortages of PPE (personal protective equipment) that the healthcare community is experiencing, so many farm workers go wanting for PPE. This population also often works, and sometimes lives, in very close proximity, making social distancing an impossibility. Workers in other sectors, including frontline healthcare workers, may be enduring analogous exposures to toxic disinfectants, pesticides, and other “control” chemicals.

Members of the public can “arm” themselves in fighting the novel Coronavirus with good information on protective protocols, and safer disinfection products. See more in the factsheet, “Protecting Yourself from Covid-19 (Coronavirus) without Toxic Sanitizers and Disinfectants.” That would, presumably, reduce the number of poisonings happening through people’s efforts to disinfect. One of the study co-authors, Dr. Diane P. Calello, said, “Educating people about what is safe is the key, but I have a hunch the numbers will go up in April.”

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

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-poison-hotlines-rise-in-accidents-disinfectants.html and https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6916e1.htm

(Beyond Pesticides, April 23, 2020) Pesticide spray drift from adjacent farmlands expose butterfly larvae to lethal pesticide concentrations, according to research published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry by Iowa State University (ISU). Lack of previous experimental pesticide toxicity data makes it unclear as to what degree insecticides impact monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) productivity in milkweed (Asclepias spp.) habitats near pesticide-treated pasture. This study adds weight to the idea that pesticides are playing a role in the ongoing decline of this iconic butterfly, as researchers find insecticide drift from adjacent fields to be strongly associated with larval mortality. Future monarch butterfly conservation efforts should consider risks stemming from pesticide exposure when developing butterfly rehabilitation efforts, according to advocates. As co-author Niranjana Krishnan (ISU graduate student) states, “In order to make the best decisions about how and where to plant milkweed, we first need to find basic toxicity and exposure data.” 

ISU researchers established monarch butterfly colonies by collecting larvae from roadside milkweeds, which they then reared in the laboratory for incubation. To analyze the relative toxicity of various insecticides on monarch butterflies, researchers applied normal field-application rates of each pesticide at different larval development stages. Scientists used a bioassay to measure the cellular concentration of foliar insecticides (insecticides applied directed to plant leaves) exposed to monarchs by cuticular (dermal) or dietary means. They chose five common active chemical ingredients in foliar insecticides used on soybean and corn crops: beta‐cyfluthrin (pyrethroid), chlorantraniliprole (anthranilic diamide), chlorpyrifos (organophosphate), and imidacloprid and thiamethoxam (neonicotinoids). Researchers compared the bioassay’s concentration-response curves to AgDRIFT computer-modeled pesticide spray data to determine in-situ larval mortality rates downwind from treated fields.

Results of the study found that dermal and dietary exposure to beta-cyfluthrin and chlorantraniliprole was most toxic to monarchs, and resulted in high levels of larvae stasis and mortality. Notably, neonicotinoid exposure uniquely halted monarch ecdysis (molting) and pupation from caterpillar to butterfly. ISU researchers estimated the greatest larval mortality to occur 0 to 15 meters (m) downwind of pesticide-treated soybean/maize fields. Aerial pesticide applications extended larval mortality range to 60m downwind of treated fields compared to boom pesticide spray applications. This study demonstrates that data and field-scale mortality estimates will help scientists elucidate the impacts of pesticides on monarchs and establish sustainable habitats.

The monarch butterfly is fighting an uphill battle against the harmful effects of pesticides. Sharp declines in the butterfly population present a poor prognosis for monarchs, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicate an extinction risk of 86% within 50 years. Pesticide exposure and lodging availability are key to survival during larval development. Previous studies indicate threats to the survival of the milkweed plant monarchs rely on for lodging and larval development. Genetically engineered (GE) soybean and corn crops tolerate repeated exposure to herbicides, and researchers attribute spray drift from weed killers like glyphosate to milkweed extermination in many agricultural areas of the country. 

This study indicates that pesticide exposure indirectly affects monarch populations by interrupting larval development and success rate. The reproductive success of monarch butterflies depends on milkweed availability as monarchs require milkweed to complete its lifecycle. Milkweed acts as an obligate host for monarchs to exclusively lay their developing larvae on leaves and stems. Researchers suggest planting an additional 1.3 to 1.6 billion milkweed stalks will improve monarch butterfly resilience. Milkweed grows most successfully on agricultural land, yet the study finds that pesticide drift from adjacent maize and soybean pastures threaten the obligate host’s survival.  

Monarch butterflies need improvements in protection policies to safeguard reproductive success and decrease pesticide drift exposure. The data in this study has implications for a multitude of butterfly species and their exposure to pesticides upon the establishment of additional milkweed conservation habitats. Organic land management curtails the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. 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 butterflies, and other pollinators, check out information on pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds, and organic agriculture.

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

Source: Iowa State University

In 1962, Rachel Carson said we stood at a crossroads:

“The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road — the one less traveled by — offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of the earth.”

Eight years later, on April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day encouraged collective action for conservation. Now, in the midst of a pandemic and cascading environmental crises (arguably, down the road of disaster), forging a new path toward restoration will take courage and imagination. This Earth Day, Beyond Pesticides is putting forth a toolkit to abandon half measures and forge ahead with an organic approach for repairing human health and the environment.

LISTEN TO SCIENCE

Biodiversity is plummeting worldwide. The climate crisis looms even as COVID-19 grabs headlines. Environmental pollution is a predictor of coronavirus death. Never has it been more obvious that the global community is interconnected, and enforcing preventative measures is critical before it is too late. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ignores science, moving ahead with deregulation to the benefit of industry.

While it is unlikely that federal regulation will change for the better during this administration, it is nonetheless critical to keep an eye and voice on this issue and advocate for science.

>>Tell EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to follow the advice of scientists and do his job. Tell your Congressional representatives to support scientific integrity at EPA and other agencies. 

THINK HOLISTICALLY INSTEAD OF CHEMICAL-BY-CHEMICAL

Rachel Carson’s activism led to the ban of the toxic pesticide DDT, and bird populations consequently rebounded. However, Ms. Carson’s call to action was never just about DDT, and despite the many Earth Day celebrations since 1970, 3 billion birds have been lost and 57% of bird species are currently on the decline. Single-chemical bans are insufficient and short-sighted to the scope and scale of the crises we face.

Not only is it grossly inadequate to only consider reduction in a global, disastrous freefall, advocates also highlight that toxic chemicals are unnecessary for food production, pest mitigation, and lawn care.

The coronavirus pandemic is heightening the pesticide problem: chemical-intensive agriculture is now especially dangerous for the vulnerable farmworkers who feed us, and chemical lawn care is an unnecessary attack on the health of a respiratory distressed and immunocompromised population.

>> Protect Farmworkers: Tell Congress to provide essential benefits to essential workers.

THE ROAD TO RECOVERY IS ORGANIC

The elimination of toxic pesticide use protects biodiversity and supports clean air, water, and land. Organic practices enhance atmospheric carbon sequestration, which slows global temperature change and allows for a livable future. See Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming, which concludes that it is possible to sequester more than 100% of current annual CO₂ emissions by switching to organic management practices, which are referred to in the paper as “regenerative organic agriculture.”

The road to recovery from the crash of global biodiversity, the coronavirus pandemic, and the climate crisis should center organic practices that promote healthy communities and ecosystems.

>>Tell Congress to Help Organic Farmers Hurt by the Pandemic

Click here for images to share on social media

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

P-22 is being treated for mange; blood tests found anti-coagulant rodenticides, commonly known as rat poison.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 21, 2020) Last week, the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to give mountain lion populations in certain parts of the state temporary protective status, and initiate a year-long study to consider permanent safeguards. Mountain lions in California are under considerable threat from a range of issues, including inbreeding, human developments, and the use of hazardous rodenticides. “There’s an extraordinary urgency for action to preserve this population,” said Commissioner Samantha Murray prior to the unanimous vote, according to the OC Register.

According to a study published last year in the journal Ecological Applications, mountain lion populations in Southern California’s Santa Ana and Santa Monica Mountains are at risk of local extinction within 50 years without intervention. Highways and other man-made structures have hemmed in the cougars, resulting in inbreeding that threatens genetic diversity and can result in sterile offspring.  Although specific actions under the new status are not guaranteed, it will force changes within California executive agencies.

“For Caltrans, this could include building wildlife crossings over or under existing freeways or as part of freeway expansion projects,” J.P. Rose, staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, the environmental group that petitioned the state for protections, told the OC Register. “For the Department of Pesticide Regulation, this may include re-evaluation of the use of deadly rat poisons in mountain lion habitat.”

Rodenticide use poses a serious risk to the dwindling populations of mountain lions in Southern California. In early 2019, a mountain lion dubbed P-47, living in the Santa Monica Mountains, was found dead by the National Park Service after exposure to rat poison.  “It’s unfortunate to see an otherwise healthy mountain lion lost from what appears to be human causes,” said Seth Riley, a wildlife ecologist with the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to the LA Times. “In P-47’s case, it’s also a big loss because we don’t believe he had yet mated and passed along his genes, which would have been valuable since he had ancestry from north of the Santa Monicas.”

In 2018, another three-year old mountain lion, P-55, infamous for its ability to crisscross California’s 101 Freeway, died of suspected rodenticide poisonings, shortly after another cougar, P-41, was found dead with six different pesticides detected in its liver.  A similar rodenticide poisoning nearly killed mountain lion P-22, which, for a time, roamed the Hollywood Hills along Griffith Park’s Hollywood sign.

These poisons, used to kill voles, rats, and other rodents, work their way up the food chain, posing risks at each trophic level. A study published in 2018 found that chemicals like bromadiolone, a second generation rodenticide, can in fact function as “super-predators” within ecosystems by limiting prey to other predators, and making the prey that is available hazardous to their health. “Controlling voles with bromadiolone reduces the amount of food available to predators and increases their risk of secondary poisoning when they eat the contaminated rodents,” said study coauthor Javier Fernandez de Simon, PhD.

Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity took steps to sue the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) over its continued allowance of four rodenticides. Information published by CDPR finds evidence of rodenticides in 88% of bobcats and 90% of mountain lions tested.

 Broader restrictions are also being advocated in the state legislature. AB 1788, which banned the sale of second generation rodenticides, came close to passage last year but was ultimately withdrawn after intense lobbying from chemical companies.

The new protections are an important means to move forward regulations that will protect mountain lions and other threatened predators in the state of California. There are wide range of alternatives to hazardous rodenticides for the management of common pest problems. For more information on how you can do your part to protect local wildlife from unnecessary poisoning, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage. And for additional data on the threats pesticides pose to mountain lions and other species, see our webpage on Wildlife.

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

Source: The OC Register

(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2020) As USDA takes public comments on its updated dietary guidelines, it important that sustainable, regenerative organic food production practices are an integral part. Since 1990, Congress has required an every-five-years review of its Dietary Guidelines — recommendations intended to promote public health and prevent chronic diseases. The next review and a draft updated version, the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is currently underway.

USDA says that the dietary guidelines provide “information that helps Americans make healthy choices for themselves and their families.” In order to make healthy food choices, the guidelines must go beyond the traditional parameters to include how the food is produced. How food is produced affects the health of Americans not only as a result of the nutritional quality of the food, but also due to environmental contamination.

Sign the petition to USDA and send a letter to Congress. Tell them that organic food must be emphasized in new dietary guidelines.

Although research on the nutritional density of organic produce is equivocal, showing some higher levels of antioxidants, results are decidedly clear for animal products. Pastured organic animal products—including beef, lamb, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs—have been shown to be superior to that of products of chemical-intensive crops and confined animals in their distribution of fatty acids.

The differences to consumers go beyond nutritional value. Organic food is generally free of residues of pesticides and antibiotics. Pesticide residues are found in 70% of the food sold in the U.S., and residues of antibiotics are common in nonorganic milk. These residues may not exceed EPA tolerances, but lower levels may still have health effects. EPA does not take into account the combined effects of different pesticides that may occur on an item of produce (or in a meal), which often exceed the sum of the residues. It does not take into account the combined effects of all the ingredients of a single pesticide product. Despite a requirement in the Food Quality Protection Act that EPA implement screening of pesticides for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by 1999, pesticides are still not evaluated for their endocrine disruption potential, which can occur at levels far below those that cause the effects for which EPA tests.

Among the endocrine disruptors that are particularly relevant in the context of these guidelines are obesogens. As stated in an article by Drs. Amanda Janesick and Bruce Blumberg, “Recently, EDCs have been implicated in metabolic syndrome and obesity. Adipose tissue is a true endocrine organ and, therefore, an organ that is highly susceptible to disturbance by EDCs. A subset of EDCs, called ‘obesogens,’ promote adiposity by altering programming of fat cell development, increasing energy storage in fat tissue, and interfering with neuroendocrine control of appetite and satiety.”

In addition to the direct impacts of pesticide food residues on consumers, chemical-intensive agriculture contaminates air, water, and land, affecting the health of Americans in other ways. Pesticides in the air can aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems. Pesticides run off into streams and leach into groundwater, contaminating drinking water. Farmworkers should also be protected by these food guidelines because their health is threatened by the poisons that are applied to fields where they work.

Organic food production sequesters more carbon in the soil than conventional chemical-intensive agriculture, helping to mitigate climate change. Health hazards of climate change range from injury and death from a higher frequency of more severe storms to northward migration of tropical diseases and their insect vectors.

USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic–pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife.

The updated dietary guidelines should incorporate this information and recommend that Americans consume, to the extent possible, organic produce and organic pastured animal products.

Sign the petition to USDA and send a letter to Congress. Tell them that organic food must be emphasized in new dietary guidelines.

Petition to USDA

As USDA takes public comments on its updated dietary guidelines, it important that sustainable, regenerative organic food production practices are an integral part. Since 1990, Congress has required an every-five-years review of its Dietary Guidelines — recommendations that are supposed, minimally, to promote public health and prevent chronic diseases. The next review and a draft updated version, the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is currently underway. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) examined the evidence on sustainable diets for the first time, but this topic was not included within the scope of work for the 2020 DGAC. The 2015 committee concluded that “in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact ([greenhouse gas] emissions and energy, land, and water use) than is the current average U.S. diet.” [1]

USDA says that the food guidelines provide “information that helps Americans make healthy choices for themselves and their families.” In order to make healthy food choices, the guidelines must go beyond the traditional parameters to include how the food is produced. How food is produced affects the health of Americans not only as a result of the nutritional quality of the food, but also due to environmental contamination.

Although research on the nutritional density of organic produce is equivocal, showing some higher levels of antioxidants [2], results are decidedly clear for animal products. Pastured organic animal products—including beef [3], lamb [4], pork [5], dairy [6], poultry [7], and eggs [8]—have been shown to be superior to that of products of chemical-intensive crops and confined animals in their distribution of fatty acids.

The differences to consumers go beyond nutritional value. Organic food is generally free of residues of pesticides and antibiotics. Pesticide residues are found in 70% of the food sold in the U.S., and residues of antibiotics are common in nonorganic milk. [9] These residues may not exceed EPA tolerances, but lower levels may still have health effects. EPA does not take into account the combined effects of different pesticides that may occur on an item of produce (or in a meal), which often exceed the sum of the residues. It does not take into account the combined effects of all the ingredients of a single pesticide product. Despite a requirement in the Food Quality Protection Act that EPA implement screening of pesticides for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by 1999, pesticides are still not evaluated for their endocrine disruption potential, which can occur at levels far below those that cause the effects for which EPA tests.

Among the endocrine disruptors that are particularly relevant in the context of these guidelines are obesogens. As stated in an article by Drs. Amanda Janesick and Bruce Blumberg, “Recently, EDCs have been implicated in metabolic syndrome and obesity. Adipose tissue is a true endocrine organ and, therefore, an organ that is highly susceptible to disturbance by EDCs. A subset of EDCs, called ‘obesogens,’ promote adiposity by altering programming of fat cell development, increasing energy storage in fat tissue, and interfering with neuroendocrine control of appetite and satiety.” [10]

In addition to the direct impacts of pesticide food residues on consumers, chemical-intensive agriculture contaminates air, water, and land, affecting the health of Americans in other ways. Pesticides in the air can aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems. Pesticides run off into streams and leach into groundwater, contaminating drinking water. Farmworkers should also be protected by these food guidelines because their health is threatened by the poisons that are applied to fields where they work. [11]

Organic food production sequesters more carbon in the soil than conventional chemical-intensive agriculture, helping to mitigate climate change. [12] Health hazards of climate change range from injury and death from a higher frequency of more severe storms to northward migration of tropical diseases and their insect vectors.

USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic–pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife.

The updated dietary guidelines should incorporate this information and recommend that Americans consume, to the extent possible, organic produce and organic pastured animal products.

References

[1] DGAC (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee). 2015. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

[2] Bernacchia, R., Preti, R. and Vinci, G., 2016. Organic and Conventional Foods: Differences in Nutrients. Italian Journal of Food Science, 28(4).

[3] Bjorklund, E.A., Heins, B.J., DiCostanzo, A. and Chester-Jones, H., 2014. Fatty acid profiles, meat quality, and sensory attributes of organic versus conventional dairy beef steers. Journal of Dairy Science, 97(3), pp.1828-1834.

[4] Popova, T., 2007. Effect of the rearing system on the fatty acid composition and oxidative stability of the M. longissimus lumborum and M. semimembranosus in lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 71(1-3), pp. 150-157.

[5] Practical Farmers of Iowa, 2019. Research Report: Fatty acid comparisons of grain and forage-fed pork. https://practicalfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/18.L.Nutrient-Density-Profiles-for-Conventional-vs.-Pasture-Raised-Pork.pdf.

[6] Benbrook, C.M., Davis, D.R., Heins, B.J., Latif, M.A., Leifert, C., Peterman, L., Butler, G., Faergeman, O., Abel-Caines, S. and Baranski, M., 2018. Enhancing the fatty acid profile of milk through forage-based rations, with nutrition modeling of diet outcomes. Food science & nutrition, 6(3), pp.681-700.

[7] Tufarelli, V., Ragni, M. and Laudadio, V., 2018. Feeding forage in poultry: a promising alternative for the future of production systems. Agriculture, 8(6), p.81.

[8] Karsten, H.D., Patterson, P.H., Stout, R. and Crews, G., 2010. Vitamins A, E and fatty acid composition of the eggs of caged hens and pastured hens. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(1), pp.45-54.

[9] Pesticide residues found in 70% of produce sold in US even after washing, The Guardian. March 20, 2019. Welsh, J.A., Braun, H., Brown, N., Um, C., Ehret, K., Figueroa, J. and Barr, D.B., 2019. Production-related contaminants (pesticides, antibiotics and hormones) in organic and conventionally produced milk samples sold in the USA. Public health nutrition, 22(16), pp.2972-2980.

[10] Janesick, A.S. and Blumberg, B., 2016. Obesogens: an emerging threat to public health. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 214(5), pp.559-565.

[11] https://beyondpesticides.org/resources/eating-with-a-conscience/overview.

[12] Ghabbour, E.A., Davies, G., Misiewicz, T., Alami, R.A., Askounis, E.M., Cuozzo, N.P., Filice, A.J., Haskell, J.M., Moy, A.K., Roach, A.C. and Shade, J., 2017. National comparison of the total and sequestered organic matter contents of conventional and organic farm soils. In Advances in Agronomy (Vol. 146, pp. 1-35). Academic Press.

Letter to Congress

Congress requires a review of its Dietary Guidelines—recommendations to promote public health and prevent chronic diseases—every five years. The 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans review is currently underway. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) examined the evidence on sustainable diets for the first time, but this topic was not included within the scope of work for the 2020 DGAC.

USDA says food guidelines provide “information that helps Americans make healthy choices for themselves and their families.” The guidelines must include production practices that affect the health of Americans not only through the nutritional quality of the food, but also due to environmental contamination.

Research on the nutritional density of organic produce shows some higher levels of antioxidants. Pastured organic animal products—including beef, lamb, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs—have been shown to be superior to that of products of chemical-intensive agriculture in their distribution of fatty acids.

Organic food is generally free of residues of pesticides and antibiotics. Pesticide residues are found in 70% of the food sold in the U.S., and residues of antibiotics are common in nonorganic milk. Even when residues do not exceed EPA tolerances, they may have health effects. EPA does not take into account the combined effects of different pesticides or of all the ingredients of a single pesticide product. Despite a requirement in the Food Quality Protection Act that EPA implement screening of pesticides for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by 1999, pesticides are still not evaluated for their endocrine disruption potential, which can occur at levels far below those that cause the effects for which EPA tests.

Among the EDCs that are particularly relevant in the context of these guidelines are obesogens. As stated in an article by Drs. Amanda Janesick and Bruce Blumberg, “Recently, EDCs have been implicated in metabolic syndrome and obesity. Adipose tissue is a true endocrine organ and, therefore, an organ that is highly susceptible to disturbance by EDCs. A subset of EDCs, called ‘obesogens,’ promote adiposity by altering programming of fat cell development, increasing energy storage in fat tissue, and interfering with neuroendocrine control of appetite and satiety.”

In addition to the impacts on consumers, pesticides in the air can aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems. Pesticides run off into streams and leach into groundwater, contaminating drinking water. The health of farmworkers is threatened by the poisons applied to fields where they work.

Organic food production sequesters more carbon in the soil than conventional chemical-intensive agriculture, helping to mitigate climate change. Health hazards of climate change range from injury and death from a higher frequency of more severe storms to northward migration of tropical diseases and their insect vectors.

USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health, protecting Americans from pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish, and other wildlife.

The updated dietary guidelines should incorporate this information and recommend that Americans consume, to the extent possible, organic produce and organic pastured animal products.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2020) As the novel coronavirus pandemic upends much of human activity, some governments are acting to loosen environmental regulations — purportedly, in the interests of public health in the face of Covid-19 threats, and/or in deference to economic concerns of certain industrial sectors. There has been little analysis, to date, of what the “on the ground” impacts of these relaxed rules may be, but news out of Scotland illustrates some kinds of concerns critics and advocates have about such loosening of regulations. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has issued new, temporary rules that allow some salmon farms both to ignore newly established limits on the amount of emamectin, an insecticide used to control sea lice that plague the salmon, and to boost use of azamethiphos, another insecticide used against the lice, beyond previous 24-hour limits.

SEPA says the relaxed rules will endure only as long as the Covid-19 “lockdown” remains in place (perhaps the end of June), and apply only to new or expanding enterprises, which to date total approximately 14 of the country’s 200+ salmon farms. The farmed salmon industry represents a huge domestic and export commodity worth approximately $2.5 billion annually. In addition to the loosening of these specific pesticide rules, collection, analysis, and reporting about environmental samples, which may be delayed for some of the same reasons, will “not be treated as a non-compliance” if SEPA is notified and offered a “suitable explanation.”

Farmed fish, and Atlantic salmon in this case, are raised in what are, essentially, pens suspended in open sea lochs (arms of the sea that are narrow or partially landlocked) on Scotland’s west coast and Northern Isles. Many of these are in relatively remote areas, so are somewhat “hidden” from public scrutiny. The fish in these pens live under very crowded conditions, with far greater density than do wild salmon. They are fed processed feed that is usually laced with various pharmaceuticals and/or insecticides used to ward off diseases and pest infestations, such as the sea lice, which tend to break out in such crowded conditions.

The fish also discharge thousands of tons of feces and food waste into the surrounding sea (as well as pesticide and pharmaceutical residues). The food and fecal matter ratchet up the nitrate levels in the nearby marine ecosystem, which has deleterious effects on ocean plants and organisms. The pesticides and other pharmaceuticals can harm local ecosystems and marine life.

Friends of the Earth has written, “It is no secret that a massive population of animals in a closed space will breed pests and disease. Farmed fish in net pens are hosts to a variety of pests and diseases, including sea lice, infectious salmon anemia, and Piscine Reovirus, just to name a few. Rather than solve the root of the problem — that is, by sustainably farming animals in more humane conditions — mega-farms simply add to the problem by using pesticides and a pharmacopeia of agricultural drugs in an attempt to control pests and disease. . . . A number of industrial ocean fish farms have embraced pesticides to ward off sea lice and other parasites. Not only do these dangerous chemicals kill off sea lice, but also everything living nearby the farm.”

Fish farming also decreases biodiversity. Wild and farmed Atlantic salmon are not genetically identical; farmed species are often hybrids from non-local stocks. Farmed fish often escape their pens through holes in the netting; in 2016, for example, more than 300,000 farmed salmon escaped their pens off Scotland’s coast. When this occurs, DNA can be transferred from the formerly captive salmon to wild populations in the area. The important genetic diversity of wild Atlantic salmon is compromised when they breed with farmed Atlantic salmon — an effect that increases over time and growing contacts. This threatens wild populations: stocks of wild salmon in rivers and waterways will be reduced because locally adapted gene pools make for better survival rates. In fact, in 2019, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reported that Scotland’s wild salmon stocks were at their lowest level ever.

Less than a week prior to its announcement on these two pesticides, SEPA relaxed rules regulating the monitoring of salmon farms, the permitted weight of salmon in the farms’ cages, and the length of time the fish can remain in them. SEPA asserted that the move was to help aquatic fisheries deal with staff shortages and necessary social distancing related to Covid-19. SEPA took the steps on loosening these pesticide rules in response to fishing industry requests, which claimed that, for example, given those issues, emamectin (sold commercially as the product “Slice”) was “the only practical option for maintaining control over sea lice during the Covid-19 outbreak.”

SEPA is aware that emamectin and azamethiphos kill crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters, and others), but have deemed this an acceptable short-term impact. Ironically, SEPA attempted to ban emamectin in 2016, following a study by the Scottish Association for Marine Science that “warned that emamectin was harming crabs, lobsters and other crustaceans around fish farms.” SEPA did manage to tighten regulations on use of the pesticide in October 2017. But, in 2019, The Ferret reported, based on 2017–2018 investigations, SEPA and the Scottish government “secretly bowed to pressure from the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO). To bolster their arguments about the pesticide, SSPO and Merck (emamectin’s U.S. manufacturer) funded an unpublished study that asserted that “wildlife in sea lochs could withstand high concentrations of the pesticide.” SEPA used this study in its reviews, and has claimed that it can’t release it publicly because it is “commercially confidential.”

Merck and the SSPO defended the study and justified use of emamectin, saying that, “Sea lice infestations represent the most significant disease problem currently affecting sea-farmed salmon around the world. Effective control of all parasitic stages of sea lice with emamectin, as part of an integrated pest management approach, including biological control and mechanical treatments, has helped to dramatically increase animal welfare and reduce the economic impact of sea lice on the global salmon industry.”

Environmental advocates have voiced their opposition to the current rule changes, and to the past several years of lobbying by the industry to allow not only use, but also, higher limits on use, of emamectin in marine fish farms. Objections are based on multiple concerns, including the harms to aquatic organisms and ecosystems that increased pollution and the toxicity of such pesticides cause. A spokesperson for the Scottish Greens said, “Emamectin is a toxic pesticide which has been shown to devastate marine life. SEPA previously believed there was a case for an outright ban on its use, so at the very least ministers must back the stringent controls now recommended by experts, and resist the inevitable pressure from industry lobbyists and their dubious, unpublished research.”

The National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Salmon Watch, and Trout Conservation Scotland have all criticized use of this pesticide in salmon farming. Scottish Salmon Watch called emamectin a “serial killer of shellfish” and said, “SEPA must ban emamectin as they proposed back in 2016 before the industry, Scottish Government and chemical giant Merck successfully lobbied to delay, deny and distract. No ifs and buts and no more delays. ‘Slicegate’ represents everything that is wrong with the dirty rotten Scottish salmon farming industry.” National Trust for Scotland issued this statement: “The aquaculture industry is recommending hugely elevated levels similar to those that we already know are killing marine wildlife. Accepting the industry’s assessment of safe levels for these chemicals would be like accepting the fox’s advice on chicken farm security.”

The Coast Communities Network (CCN), a coalition of 16 groups that has grave concerns about the impacts of emamectin on shellfish, has called fish farms the “biggest polluters of Scotland’s seas, and has called on Scottish ministers to reject the industry push for weakened regulations. On the current “Covid” loosening of rules, the CCN fish farming spokesperson, John Aitchison, has said, “We do not want them to discharge any more pollution. . . . The need to dump even more pollution in the sea during this crisis shows that it must give up its open nets and adopt closed-containment methods to capture its pollution instead, as any other responsible industry would do.” Scottish Salmon Watch representative Don Staniford commented, “It’s scandalous that SEPA is now opening the floodgates to lobster-killing chemicals such as emamectin — a toxic chemical SEPA planned on banning back in 2016. . . . Coronavirus is being deployed as a Trojan horse by salmon farmers waging a never-ending war on sea lice. Heaven knows what environmental damage this toxic industry will be guilty of by the end of June when the temporary rules are lifted.”

In 2019, commenting on the industry push to raise limits on emamectin’s use based on the “secret’ study, Mr. Aitchison denounced that development: “It seems beyond belief that a pesticide company can lobby a regulator to be lenient when setting the standards that will govern the use of its products, based on data and analysis which it refuses to make public. It is hard to understand how the SSPO can justify funding this study while claiming that its members are using the sea sustainably. Surely the industry must see how irresponsible it is to argue that it’s safe to discharge high levels of a persistent pesticide into the sea where many jobs depend on catching crabs, lobsters and prawns? Surely it must also see that this destroys the credibility of its PR and advertising, that so often trade on fish farmers rearing salmon in Scotland’s pristine seas?”

This relaxation of regulations in Scotland is not the only example of governmental short-sightedness that may result in increased environmental and public health damage. Here in the U.S., on March 26, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to relax a number of regulations, including those on air quality protections (even given evidence that poorer air quality increases the lethality of Covid-19), and on the explosion of toxic disinfectants allowed for public use.

Beyond Pesticides alerted readers about these regulatory issues in its March 27 Daily News Blog piece, “Safer Practices and Disinfectants for Coronavirus Identified by CDC, As EPA Advances Toxic Products, Suspends Public Health and Environmental Protections.” For guidance on nontoxic protection from the novel Coronavirus, see Beyond Pesticides’ Factsheet, and monitor the Daily News Blog for emerging developments. Please practice the important safety and health protocols found in the Factsheet, and from reliable, science-based outlets, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

Sources: https://theferret.scot/toxic-pesticides-salmon-farmers-coronavirus/ and https://theferret.scot/fish-farming-industry-emamectin/.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2020) Pesticide exposure in farmland birds is a concomitant of pesticide-treated muesli (cereal) seed commonly planted during winter months, according to research published in Science of the Total Environment by United Kingdom (UK) scientists. Not only do pesticide-treated seeds pose the highest dietary risk to birds, but pesticide-treated seeds also go underreported as farmers often lack knowledge of what pesticides are on the seeds they plant. This study emphasizes the global effects of treated seeds, and their corresponding pesticide exposure, on bird species. Future risk assessments for bird should address these implications when implementing agricultural pesticide policies. 

Farmers use of treated seeds exposes farmland birds to pesticides like neonicotinoids (neonics), including clothianidin (CLO). Pesticide residues then accumulate in the birds’ blood. UK scientists examined pesticides in farmland bird blood samples to connect the field-based use of treated seeds to clothianidin exposure patterns. At the time of this study, CLO was the most widely used pesticide on treated winter cereal seeds in the UK.

Scientists recorded the presence of neonicotinoid-treated seed in 39 fields of 25 farms after seeding. Camera traps monitored farmland birds’ seed consumption. To measure CLO concentration in treated seed and seedling, scientists used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to identify inorganic, organic, and biochemical compounds. Researchers obtained blood samples from 11 farmland avian species to calculate CLO occurrence and level of exposure related to treated seeds.

Neonicotinoid-treated cereal seeds were present on the soil surface of all farms, 38 out of 39 field sites, and in clusters on 31 out of 39 field sites. Conventional agricultural practices (such as drilling) made seed surface coverage less dense toward the field’s center as farmers’ field equipment clustered seeds towards the edges. Thirty-two percent of all surveyed bird species suffered CLO exposure with 15 species of bird consuming CLO-treated seeds, in situ. Researchers detected CLO in 50% of individual blood plasma samples in 10 out of 11 avian species. This study demonstrates the highest logged clothianidin exposure levels for wild birds, thus far.

Many birds’ diet consists of agricultural seeds and plant matter. Neonicotinoid pesticides accumulate in migratory songbirds and reduce their chances of survival in the wild by producing a torrent of sublethal impacts (weight reduction, travel delays, and a reduction in reproductive success). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that 1-5 seeds of treated-corn cause acute to chronic levels of harm to large and small birds alike. EPA states, “Dietary exposures from clothianidin treated seeds are noted to result in the highest acute and chronic risks from the terrestrial risk assessment to birds and mammals.”

This study demonstrates that clothianidin toxicity is above foraging birds’ threshold for the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL). Larger wood pigeons ingest 65% of the chemical compound required to cause adverse reproductive effects. Smaller wood pigeons consume 11%-31% of the chemical compound to exceed the NOAEL threshold for reproductive dysfunction. UK researchers assert that inadequate seeding application methods (field conditions, equipment, calibration, etc.) allot “unlimited” quantities of neonicotinoid-treated seeds to poison foraging birds.

The identification of neonicotinoid-treated seed as a source of pesticide exposure is relevant when assessing the future risks pesticides expound unto bird species. In addition to toxicity exposure, improper control regulations, poor manufacturing, and high application variability make pesticide-treated seeds problematic. The data from this study has implications for a multitude of bird species exposed to toxic insecticides and should aid in future policy decisions related to this group of chemicals. Switch to organic to reduce wild birds’ exposure to toxic insecticides (like clothianidin) and replace pesticide-treated seeds with organic seeds from our organic seed directory. Learn more about pesticide-treated seeds and the harm they cause by viewing Seeds that Poison. To see how you can protect your local bird population, learn more about pesticides’ impact on birds and how organics help eliminate pesticide exposure.

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

Source: Science of The Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2020) Home pesticide use during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of a child developing the kidney cancer nephroblastoma, or Wilms’ tumor, according to research published in Cancer Epidemiology by a team of French scientists. Wilms’ tumor is one of the most common childhood cancers but has an inscrutable etiology. This study adds weight to the theory that pesticides are a driver of the tumor’s development, as pesticide use was more strongly associated than other widely investigated causes, including parental smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

Families enrolled in an ongoing nationwide French study were questioned by phone about their lifestyle, including smoking habits, mother’s alcohol consumption, and household pesticide use. Participants were further segmented by their frequency of these risk factors, and pesticide use was narrowed down by type, including herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide use, as well as where the chemicals were used (indoor/outdoor). Researchers ultimately enrolled 117 families whose children developed nephroblastoma, and included 1100 families as a control.

A regression analysis found no association between either parent smoking and incidence of the disease. Similarly, no pattern was found in the relation between maternal alcohol consumption and Wilms’ tumor. However, use of any pesticides during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of disease development. Families whose children developed nephroblastoma reported higher rates of pesticide use than control families (52% to 40%). While any pesticide use was associated with a higher risk, insecticides, particularly use of combinations of insecticides and other pesticides, showed stronger associations. The strongest link between Wilms’ tumor and environmental exposure was parental use of pesticides within three months of pregnancy.

This study reinforces concepts around “critical windows of exposure,” which posits that prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxins increase susceptibility to health impacts. While nephroblastoma generally afflicts children under the age of five, other early life exposures can take years, and even decades before health impacts arise. A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2019 found that women exposed to the long-banned chemical DDT during childhood or puberty had an increased risk of developing cancer both before and after the age of 50. Researchers were able to determine how first exposure related to the timing of breast cancer development. Maternal exposure to DDT and its metabolites in the womb has also been linked to a higher chance of an autism diagnosis in children. Relevant to the current Covid19 pandemic, prenatal and infant exposure to DDT and other organochlorine class pesticides has been linked to poorer lung function in adolescence.

The present study did not zero in on the exact pesticides associated with Wilms’ tumor, but current evidence indicates that it is not only banned chemicals like DDT that are harming mothers and children during critical windows of development. A 2018 study published in Environmental Health found that women with high levels of the weedkiller glyphosate in their bodies were more likely to have shorter pregnancies, which puts children at risk delayed brain development and learning disabilities.  

Nephroblastoma is not the only cancer that has been linked to household pesticide use. A 2017 study published in Cancer Epidemiology using the same French cohort found an association between past use of pesticides in the home and the development of brain tumors in children under the age of 15. Nicolas Vidart d’Egurbide Bagazgoïtia, PhD, lead author of the study, noted, “Although such retrospective studies cannot identify specific chemicals used or quantify the exposure, our findings add another reason to advise mothers to limit their exposure to pesticides around the time of pregnancy.”

There a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during these critical windows of development. Given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies to manage common household pests, these precautions represent low-hanging fruit for new families wishing to give their children a safe and healthy head start in the world.

For more information on the link between pesticide use and cancer, and to learn more about critical windows of exposure for young children, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Cancer Epidemiology

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2020) An op-ed in the New York Times asks, “What Happens if America’s 2.5 Million Farmworkers Get Sick?” Without those farmworkers, the year-round supply of fresh fruits and vegetables that we take for granted would be impossible. The supply chain of those vital foods starts with the workers who plant, cultivate, and harvest them. Our society and everyone living in the U.S. depend on farmworkers.

Tell Congress to provide essential benefits to essential farmworkers.

But farmworkers are at high risk from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Living in crowded conditions, social distancing is impossible for them. They have little access to health care. Washing hands is often impossible in the field. With children home from school, they have additional childcare costs to pay with their low wages. They also have increased costs from using private transportation to avoid crowded buses.

And many farmworkers are exposed to respiratory hazards like pesticides and fungal spores that make them more susceptible to the coronavirus.

As the medical demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) increases, farmworkers are being faced with potential shortages of masks, gloves, and suits. Last month, a group of Washington farmworkers walked off a worksite because their employer was not offering sufficient PPE. No farmworker should be forced to apply pesticides without the necessary PPE. EPA and states must enforce this label requirement. On March 26, EPA issued a sweeping suspension of its enforcement program, putting farmworkers at even higher risk. U.S. agricultural producers are subject to an EPA worker protection rule governing enforcement of pesticide use restrictions, rather than labor laws under the Department of Labor.

At least 50% of farmworkers are undocumented, so they will not get the relief payment most other households will, even though they are U.S. taxpayers. Even their U.S. citizen children are left out. Farmworkers need our support because they do not have the personal protective equipment (PPE) and social safety nets that they need!

Tell Congress to provide essential benefits to essential farmworkers.

Sustainable agriculture includes support for agricultural workers. Farmworkers who are currently employed on a farm should receive the same payments as any other workers without questions about their status as citizens. They should be eligible for paid sick leave, SNAP (food stamps), health coverage, and workmen’s compensation.

You can contribute directly to farm and food workers through these organizations:

• Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), Midwest and North Carolina, through CMMJ
• Farmworker COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Fund
• Farmworker Association of Florida
• National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) Immigrant Worker Safety Net Fund
• Indigenous Environmental Network
• Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC) Relief
• Restaurant Workers Community Foundation
• One Fair Wage Emergency Fund

Tell Congress to provide essential benefits to essential farmworkers.                                                                

 Letter to Congress

 An op-ed in the New York Times asks, “What Happens if America’s 2.5 Million Farmworkers Get Sick?” Without those farmworkers, the year-round supply of fresh fruits and vegetables that we take for granted would be impossible. The supply chain of those vital foods starts with the workers who plant, cultivate, and harvest them. Our society and everyone living in the U.S. depend on farmworkers.

But farmworkers are at high risk from the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. Living in crowded conditions, social distancing is impossible for them. They have little access to health care. Washing hands is often impossible in the field. With children home from school, they have additional childcare costs to pay with their low wages. They also have increased costs from using private transportation to avoid crowded buses.

And many farmworkers are exposed to respiratory hazards like pesticides and fungal spores that make them more susceptible to the coronavirus. On March 26, EPA issued a sweeping suspension of its enforcement program, putting farmworkers at even higher risk. U.S. agricultural producers are subject to an EPA worker protection rule governing enforcement of pesticide use restrictions, rather than labor laws under the Department of Labor.

As the medical demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) increases, farmworkers are being faced with potential shortages of masks, gloves, and suits. Last month, a group of Washington farmworkers walked off a worksite because their employer was not offering sufficient PPE.

At least 50% of farmworkers are undocumented, so they will not get the relief payment most other households will, even though they are U.S. taxpayers. Even their U.S. citizen children are left out.

If we want a continued supply of vital foods, we must support agricultural workers. Please take the following actions:

*Farmworkers who are currently employed on a farm should receive the same payments as any other workers without questions about their status as citizens.

*Farmworkers, regardless of immigration status, must be eligible for paid sick leave, SNAP (food stamps), health coverage, and workers’ compensation.

*Hazard pay must be provided immediately for these workers who are now working in a dangerous environment and dealing with large additional expenses.

*EPA and states must enforce pesticide product label requirements and the EPA farmworker protection rule so that no farmworker is be forced to apply pesticides without the necessary PPE.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2020) Since 1990, Congress has required an every-five-years review of its Dietary Guidelines — recommendations that are supposed, minimally, to promote public health and prevent chronic diseases. The next review and a draft updated iteration, the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, are currently underway. The Union of Concerned Scientists (and several colleagues) have examined recent studies on dietary patterns and sustainability; their analysis reveals that the current federal guidelines on diet are unlikely to support sustainability of the food system in the long-term. Beyond Pesticides concurs, and maintains that a transition to sustainable, organic, regenerative agriculture is the path to both improved human health and long-term sustainability of the natural world essential to life.

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS’s) report — In Support of Sustainable Eating: Why U.S. Dietary Guidelines Should Prioritize Healthy People and a Healthy Planet — identifies this next version of the federal guidelines as a critical opportunity to shift the direction of the U.S. food and agricultural system toward far greater sustainability. UCS asserts that such a shift is beyond due: the food system in the U.S. has huge environmental impacts on pollution, use of chemical pesticides, biodiversity, and emissions that significantly worsen the myriad impacts of the climate crisis — in addition to its effects on public health.

The relationship between dietary patterns and health outcomes is solidly established. Poorer diet correlates to increased risks of a multitude of chronic health problems, including Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity. Such diet-associated diseases are among the chief causes of mortality and morbidity in this country; approximately 18% of U.S. deaths can be attributed to dietary factors. The Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted research that determined that if U.S. adults actually consumed the levels of vegetables and fruits recommended by current guidelines, “nearly 110,000 lives and $32 billion in medical costs could be saved in a single year due to reductions in cardiovascular disease.” Poor diet can translate not only to negative health outcomes, but also, to significant economic cost; as UCS notes, “Another recent study has estimated the total cost of poor diets at $50 billion annually.”

Beyond those important issues, the foods that consumers choose influence mightily the kind of agriculture that is deployed. In the U.S., that is still predominantly conventional, fossil-fuel and chemical-pesticide-intensive agriculture that is profoundly unsustainable. Some of the unsavory “downstream” environmental impacts of this kind of agriculture include its contributions to climate change — higher temperatures, compromised water and air quality, and extreme weather events, among others, that present greater risks to those with chronic conditions and acute illnesses. In addition, the unsustainable practices of conventional agriculture rob soil of its living fertility, pollute waterways with runoff, harm ecosystems and wildlife, and degrade air, soil, and water — all of which make our food system increasingly unable to respond to the challenges that a warming planet represent to our food supply.

Further, because conventional agriculture relies heavily on pesticides to deal with pests and fungal diseases, non-organic diets necessarily mean some toxic chemical residue in the foods people consume. This contamination of the food supply threatens human health in a variety of ways; see more at Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. Further, the pesticide and climate impacts (especially, increasing temperatures) of conventional agriculture interact to increase the health risks to farmworkers, according to another UCS report from late 2019.

Such extensive implications of the agricultural practices employed, again, driven in large part by consumer demand, speak to the potential that a transition of our food system offers. A move to more healthful diets, supported by a sustainable, organic, regenerative agricultural system, could mean great gains for public health, the environment, and global climate. Guidelines and messaging from federal agencies can have massive impact on food and agricultural policy, and ultimately, on what American choose to eat. This is precisely why the content of the new 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines is so important.

Improved patterns of dietary consumption are often referred to as “sustainable diets” by some global policy entities. Such patterns are defined as “those with low environmental impacts [that] contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations” by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has pointed to the need for broad changes in dietary patterns in order to rein in the growing impacts of the climate emergency. In response to such recommendations, countries such as Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany have incorporated sustainability principles into their national dietary guidance.

As noted above, the U.S. has yet to use the best available scientific research to promote sustainable dietary patterns among its populace. When the Dietary Guidelines undergo the periodic review, a scientific advisory committee writes a report to guide the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in developing each revised set of the guidelines. In 2015, that report said: “in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods, is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact ([greenhouse gas] emissions and energy, land, and water use) than is the current average U.S. diet. A diet that is more environmentally sustainable than the average U.S. diet can be achieved without excluding any food groups.”

UCS reports that members of Congress were lobbied by industry interests (to the tune of more than $77 million in 2014 and 2015 on this and related matters). Subsequently, Congress sent a letter of dissent on the 2015 guidelines to federal agencies and passed legislation that limited the scope of the guidelines “strictly to the topics of diet and nutrient intake.” Then, USDA and HHS secretaries left the portions of the advisory committee’s findings that related to environmental sustainability out of the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines. Following on that decision, the charge given to the scientific advisory committee established for the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines did not include any review of current research on the relationship between dietary patterns and sustainability.

UCS and colleagues stepped into that vacuum, reviewing a large number of studies that have looked at the environmental consequences of dietary patterns in the U.S. The central question in their investigation was: “What is the relationship between population-level dietary patterns and food sustainability and related food security?” Their work underscores the urgent need for the federal government to act on this research by advancing policies that protect both public health and national food security by prioritizing remedies to the environmental impacts of public dietary patterns. The UCS report says, “Consistent with the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, new research supports past findings that diets higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods can provide greater benefits for both human health and the environment). Specifically, 16 studies in our systematic review attributed the increased environmental impacts of diets higher in animal-based foods primarily to the amount of meat (e.g., beef, lamb, pork) or dairy in the diet.”

The UCS report makes several policy and research recommendations, with this introduction and conclusion: “The federal government must act with urgency to meet the pressing public health challenges of climate change, pollution, and chronic diseases by ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of our food supply. To develop sustainable food policy with the potential to support current and future population health across environmental, social, and economic domains, we recommend the following actions:

• The scientific advisory committee for the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines . . . must address the relationship between dietary patterns and environmental sustainability in its report, and [USDA and HHS] must respond to these recommendations publicly.
• Congress must support the inclusion of sustainability in the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines.
• Congress should enable more publicly funded research on diets that are both healthy and sustainable.

The systematic review completed by UCS and colleagues adds to a growing body of scientific evidence that dietary shifts can improve public health through chronic disease prevention, climate change mitigation, and the preservation of the future food supply. As the nation’s leading set of science-based nutrition recommendations, the Dietary Guidelines should reflect this body of evidence. It is past time that the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, supported by the best available research and implemented alongside other key federal food and agricultural policies, be equipped to address the most pressing public health challenges of our lifetime.”

Beyond Pesticides has written on the health advantages of organic dietary patterns, the role of regenerative agriculture in climate-impact mitigation, and the environmental benefits of organic agriculture, and broadly supports the analysis, recommendations, and conclusions of the UCS report. Stay tuned for an Action of the Week, which will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the current draft of the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

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

Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/in-support-of-sustainable-eating_0.pdf

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2020) Brazilian tax exemptions benefit the agrichemical industry to the tune of $2.2 billion USD annually, according to researchers from the Oswaldo Cruz foundation and the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro. ABRASCO, the Brazilian Association of Collective Health, headed a new study which illuminates a tight relationship between Brazilian government and industry. Researchers additionally point to millions of dollars given from public resource funds to the companies. While industry lobby groups argue that toxic pesticides are necessary for development and food production, environmental and health advocates say the people of Brazil bear the brunt of toxic pesticide contamination while international companies profit.

“It is as if you lived in a condominium and your neighbor didn’t have to pay the condominium fees. And that they got the pool dirty, and the shared gym space, generating costs for everyone else,” says Marcelo Novaes, a São Paulo State public defender who has spent years investigating this issue, “These benefits give large agribusiness companies a break while throwing the cost back on society.”

By value, Brazil is the world’s largest consumer of toxic pesticides. Since President Jair Bolsonaro took office in 2018, the country has rapidly approved new products – a record 474 in 2019. Last August, the country made death the sole criteria for toxicity. Meanwhile, pesticide poisonings are a rampant crisis in Brazil. In 2016, residents registered 4,208 cases of pesticide poisoning across the country. For every registered case, it is estimated that 50 go unreported.

“We are dominated by five large multinationals—Syngenta, Bayer-Monsanto, BASF, Corteva (ex-Dow) and DuPont—who rule over everything because they own 80% of the sector,” says Mr. Novaes, who denounces the companies as an ‘oligopoly’. Only about 5% of approved are produced entirely in Brazil, meaning U.S. and European companies are profiting off of toxic products that are often banned or restricted in their own countries.

Over the past 14 years, the Brazilian National Development Bank granted $80 million in loans to private agrichemical companies and the interest was subsidized. The Ministry of Science and Technology’s Funding Authority for Studies and Projects provided $86 million in research and development funds to large pesticide manufacturers. In 2017, the companies ceased paying almost $2 billion in federal and state taxes.

The tax exemptions are four times the Ministry of the Environment’s budget ($600 million) and double the cost of treating cancer patients in 2017 ($1 billion). Mongabay reports, “A study published in Saúde Pública magazine reveals that for every US$ 1 spent on the purchase of pesticides in the state of Paraná, US$ 1.28 is spent on the SUS [Sistema Único de Saúde/Unified Health System] public health program for the treatment of acute intoxication poisonings—those that occur immediately after application. The calculation left out spending on chronic diseases, those that appear over time due to constant exposure to pesticides, such as cancer.”

The government gives tax breaks under the guise of development and food production, but pesticides are mainly used on commodity crops such as soybeans, corn, and sugarcane. The study concludes, “It would be more reasonable to subsidize not the use of pesticides, but directly the consumption of food.”

Study coauthor Wagner Soares, an economist and graduate level professor in sustainable development practices, says, “Our study clearly showed that it’s time for society to begin to reflect on subsidies for pesticides. First, because we are in the middle of a fiscal crisis in which many sectors are re-evaluating subsidies. But mostly because of the high amount the State is unable to levy.”

Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court will soon make a decision on a lawsuit that challenges the designation of pesticides as essential to development, and instead compares pesticides to products like cigarettes – harmful to health and generative of costs borne by the entire population. This would subject them to increased taxes instead of breaks. The action was brought against the government in 2016, but the session has been postponed to an as-of-yet undetermined date.

As we face global crises of health issues and rapid biodiversity decline, agrichemical companies continue to make billions by peddling poison. Utah Phillips says, “The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.” Join us in targeting decision-makers every week with our Action of the Week, and refuse to participate in Brazilian corruption with #boycottbrazilianfood. Opt out of the chemical-intensive paradigm by going organic.

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

 Source: Mongabay

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2020) Honey bees (Apis mellifera) remain in severe decline, with U.S. beekeepers losing 30% of their managed colonies each year. A Texas A&M University (Dr. Juliana Rangel’s laboratory)  study provides evidence that chemical-intensive farming practices contaminate honey bee hives with pesticides that cause developmental delays. Researchers found that toxic pesticides adversely affect honey bee queen physiology and worker bee performance. Moreover, pesticides exacerbate the health risks associated with the declining honey bee population. When maturing honey bees’ exposure to pesticides is limited, there is an improvement in honey bee queen health and colony behavior.

In agricultural settings, honey bees are exposed to an amalgamation of pesticides. AAFC and Texas A&M researchers determined which pesticides (miticides, insecticides, and fungicides) are commonly used in combination and then used those pesticide combinations to expose honey bees to field-realistic doses in the lab: tau-fluvalinate and coumaphos, amitraz, or chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos. Researchers cultivated maturing honey bee queens in plastic cups coated with either pesticide-free or pesticide-contaminated beeswax. Honey bee queens were transferred into hives upon maturation and bred naturally. Researchers measured their egg-laying frequency along with worker bee entourage size. Post-reproduction, scientists performed a bioassay (a measurement of substance potency or concentration effects on living cells) on the honey bee queens to examine the chemical components of the mandibular (salivary) glands. 

Pesticide-contaminated beeswax impaired honey bee colonies during the queens’ maturation. This led to reproductive dysfunction that significantly decreased worker bees’ entourage size and the queens’ egg-laying rate. Worker bee performance decreased in response to the queen’s change in pheromone secretions and reproductive ability. Worker bees favored queens raised in pesticide-free conditions and formed larger cohorts to tend to the queen. Co-author Elizabeth Walsh, Ph.D., and researchers at Texas A&M state, “These results indicate that pesticide contamination of the queen-rearing wax directly affects queen physiology and behavior and further affirm that queen mandibular pheromones seem to act as honest indicators to workers of a queen’s reproductive capacity and overall health.”  

The health of an adult queen can be significantly altered by pesticide exposure during developmental stages. Adverse effects on a queen act as an indicator of the overall fitness of a colony. Much research on honey bee health focuses on the specific class of neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides and its associations with diminished grooming and health. Exposure to neonics has been linked to the decline of pollinators worldwide. Not only do these chemicals weaken worker bee flight behavior directly, but also indirectly impacts worker bee performance. This research broadens the understanding of the range of pesticides that can harm honey bees. 

Pesticides intensify honey bees’ vulnerability to health risks (such as pathogens and parasites), and colony collapse as pesticide-contaminated conditions limit colony productivity, growth, and survival. As has been widely reported, pollinators (such as bee, monarch butterflies, and bats) are a bellwether for environmental stress as individuals and as colonies. To help pollinators by eliminating pollinator-toxic pesticides, support and adopt organic land management, The BEE Protective Campaign strives to protect honey bees and other pollinators from pesticides. Learn more about bee pollinator decline, pesticide-free zones, bee-friendly habitats, and what you, or your state representative, can do to protect our pollinators. 

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

Source: Springer Link

(Beyond Pesticides, April 7, 2020) Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered a carcinogenic herbicide for new uses without following  the required public notification and comment process, the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting (MCIR) reports. The chemical in question, isoxaflutole, is a broadleaf weedkiller that can now be applied to genetically engineered (GE) soybeans in half of U.S. states. Health and environmental groups are outraged by EPA’s furtive move, accusing the agency of colluding with the pesticide industry.

“Clearly no one from the public health community knew about this because no one commented,” said Nathan Donley, PhD, of the Center for Biological Diversity to MCIR. “Yet there was all these industry comments, all these positive comments. Someone was tipped off that this docket had been opened. One side was able to comment, the other wasn’t.”

Without public notification, only 54 comments were received. In its decision document, the agency touted how most of the input “were generally in favor of the decision to register the new use.” When questioned about its move, EPA simply told MCIR that it “requested public comment on the proposed registration decision.”

The Federal Register provides the public notice of a proposed rulemaking by federal agencies like EPA, and helps ensure transparency and accountability within the executive branch. In general, agencies are required to post to the Federal Register when considering significant rule changes. There is no question EPA saw this move as significant, as it indicated in isoxafutole’s registration that it “welcomes input from the public during the decision process when registering significant new uses for registered pesticides.”

The chemical industry is pleased by the agency’s move due to rampant resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides on GE cropland throughout the country. The industry’s “solution” to this problem, touted as “resistance management,” has been to rotate a nauseating number of increasingly toxic herbicides in hopes of finding one that will take care of the problem weed.

But research from Missouri, a state where isoxaflutole was approved for use, found populations of the notorious weed water hemp resistant to six different herbicides. Although isoxaflutole was not included in the study, mesotrione, an herbicide in the same chemical class, was found to be 14 times more resistant than a susceptible water hemp plant.

A 2018 study found no evidence that rotating herbicides is an effective strategy to manage weeds. Farmers with high levels of resistance retain high weed density, no matter what new chemical are thrown at them. In fact, once a weed develops resistance to one herbicide, it is much more likely to develop resistance to other weedkillers.

Isoxaflutole is certainly not a less toxic approach to weed management. EPA lists the chemical as “likely to be carcinogenic” to humans, and its level of carcinogenicity calculated by the agency barely meets standards for approval. It is also highly drift prone, requiring EPA to impose risk mitigation measures that prohibit use not only in certain counties, but also adjacent counties in some states in order to protect endangered plants from drift. The chemical presents a significant threat to groundwater. Isoxaflutole and its breakdown chemicals have been widely detected in Midwestern streams in research published by the U.S. Geological Survey. Thus, it combines the worst elements of many widely used herbicides: the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, the drift-prone properties of dicamba, and the propensity to contaminate groundwater found with atrazine.

The chemical was recently transferred from Bayer Cropscience to BASF during the Bayer Monsanto merger, and BASF indicates the chemical will not be widely available until 2021. EPA is providing the chemical a five year registration for use on GE soybeans, indicating that use is likely to increase substantially over the next several years.

Skirting the public commenting process is concerning, and environmental groups are exploring legal options, but there are more fundamental issues at play. Federal pesticide law does not require consideration of essentiality and efficacy within its pesticide registration process; in fact, it permits EPA to completely ignore those concerns. If these requirements were written into the nation’s pesticide law, farmers would be incentivized to look to natural approaches to weed management, such as crop rotation and cover cropping, which have been found successful in the growing organic sector.

For more information on weed resistance and the dangers of GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ GE program pages.

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

Source:  Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting, EPA press release

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2020) The Trump administration’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is moving forward with a proposal to grow genetically engineered crops (GECs) on National Wildlife Refuges in the Southeast United States, including 131 refuges in 10 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Ask Congress to help stop the dangerous proposal to allow genetically engineered crops on National Wildlife Refuges in the southeast United States.

The proposal is the subject of a draft environmental assessment and opens the door to escalating uses of GE crops and harmful pesticides in wildlife refuges.

In 2014, public pressure and lawsuits by environmental groups led to the Obama administration’s decision to phase out GE crops and ban neonicotinoid insecticide use on national wildlife refuges. On August 2, 2018, the Trump administration’s USFWS issued a memorandum that reversed the prohibition. The reversal allows the refuge system to make decisions on the use of GECs and neonics on a case-by-case basis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is also under attack by the Trump administration. The Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, and others quickly challenged the 2018 reversal memorandum with a lawsuit.

National Wildlife Refuges are federal public lands specifically designated to protect fish and wildlife. The Southeastern Region is comprised of almost 4 million acres of refuge lands and waters that provide vital habitat for dozens of endangered species known to be imperiled by pesticide use—including bats, birds, freshwater mussels, and fish like the pallid sturgeon and Alabama cavefish. “It’s a no-brainer that this kind of pesticide-intensive agriculture shouldn’t be allowed on public lands that are critical to wildlife conservation and preservation of the unique ecosystems of the southeastern U.S.,” said Hannah Connor, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Approximately 44,000 acres of refuge lands in the Southeastern Region currently incorporate farming. Corn, soybeans and rice are the most commonly farmed crops. Genetically engineered corn and soybeans are typically designed to survive spraying with herbicides like glyphosate, dicamba, and 2-4,D—allowing farmers to use these pesticides prophylactically after the crops have sprouted. Increased pesticide use often coincides with wildlife feeding and breeding times, when pesticides can be especially harmful.

Glyphosate use on GE crops have significantly contributed to monarch butterflies’ 80-90% decline over the past two decades. This is because the pesticide is a potent killer of milkweed, the monarch caterpillar’s only food.

USFWS’ Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment notes the adverse impact of “commercial pesticides” (and their citations read “neonics”). Remarkably, the authors argue that genetically engineered crops, as opposed to “non-GEC,” use fewer commercial pesticides, an argument that has long been refuted—especially as most GECs are designed to be used with pesticides.

USFWS announced a public comment period for its proposal and Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment. They will accept input through April 10, 2020. Comments and questions must be submitted in writing to [email protected] or mailed to Pamala Wingrove, Branch Chief, Conservation Planning, USFWS, Southeast Region, 1875 Century Boulevard NE, Atlanta, GA, 30345. Meanwhile, please ask your U.S. Representative and Senators to weigh in.

Ask Congress to help stop the dangerous proposal to allow genetically engineered crops on National Wildlife Refuges in the southeast United States.

Letter to Congress

I am appalled at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposal to allow the cultivation of genetically engineered crops on National Wildlife Refuges in the Southeast United States, including 131 refuges in 10 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The proposal would open the door to escalating uses of GE crops and harmful pesticides in wildlife refuges. In 2014, public pressure and lawsuits by environmental groups led to the Obama administration’s decision to phase out GE crops and ban neonicotinoid insecticide use on national wildlife refuges. On August 2, 2018, the Trump administration’s FWS issued a memorandum that reversed the prohibition. The reversal allows the refuge system to make decisions on the use of GECs and neonics on a case-by-case basis.

National wildlife refuges are federal public lands specifically designated to protect fish and wildlife. The Southeastern Region is comprised of almost 4 million acres of refuge lands and waters that provide vital habitat for dozens of endangered species known to be imperiled by pesticide use—including bats, birds, freshwater mussels, and fish like the pallid sturgeon and Alabama cavefish.

Approximately 44,000 acres of refuge lands in the Southeastern Region currently incorporate farming, with corn, soybeans and rice the most commonly farmed crops. Genetically engineered corn and soybeans are typically designed to survive spraying with herbicides like glyphosate, dicamba, and 2-4,D—allowing farmers to use these pesticides prophylactically after the crops have emerged. Increased pesticide use often coincides with wildlife feeding and breeding times, when pesticides can be especially harmful.

USFWS’ Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment notes the adverse impact of “commercial pesticides” (and their citations read “neonics”). Remarkably, the authors argue that genetically engineered crops, as opposed to “non-GEC,” use fewer commercial pesticides, an argument that has long been refuted—especially as most GECs are designed to be used with pesticides.

I request that you urge USFWS to abandon its proposal because it is unwise and dangerous to the species that the refuges are mandated to protect.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2020) In mid-March, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rolled out new rules for “biological evaluations” — assessments of pesticide risks to endangered plant and animal species that are supposed to be protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agency’s press release announcing the change is misleadingly titled: “Trump Administration Takes Major Step to Improve Implementation of the Endangered Species Act.” But as the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) reports, the “revised methods for assessing pesticide risks . . . will allow widespread harm to most of the nation’s most endangered plants and animals.” Beyond Pesticides reviewed the status of pesticide threats to endangered species in November 2019 and provides ongoing coverage of the issue.

ESA requires EPA to conduct biological evaluations (BEs) of pesticides to assess their impacts on listed (endangered and threatened) species and their critical habitats. EPA’s new “Revised Method” ignores many of the ways that protected species are commonly hurt or killed by pesticides, and allows the continued marketing and use of pesticides without sensible constraints that would protect those species. CBD cites two examples of ignored impacts: downstream impacts of pesticide runoff into waterways from treated farmland, and the loss of pollinating insects on which some endangered plant species depend.

According to EHS Daily Advisor, “The Agency has now issued a nonregulatory method for conducting BEs.” This new Revised Method will emphasize actual (rather than potential) pesticide uses and impacts on listed species and their critical habitat, but is expected to quicken the delivery of pesticides to the market and to agricultural users — one goal of the Trump administration’s industry-friendly EPA. As CBD writes, “EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs has a long history of failing to protect people and the environment from pesticides.”

Such failures lie at the doorsteps of not only EPA, but also, other federal agencies. A recent example of this, in regard to endangered and threatened species, was covered by Beyond Pesticides in March 2019: “The Trump administration has known for over a year — and actively concealed — that the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos jeopardizes the existence of 1,399 endangered species. Top officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior, including Acting Secretary David Bernhardt, were privy to and prevented the release of a ‘biological opinion,’ completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2017, which contains a full analysis of the extensive environmental impacts wrought by three organophosphate insecticides” [emphasis, Beyond Pesticides].

In May 2019, EPA issued a preliminary proposal on methods for assessment of risk for endangered species. Beyond Pesticides wrote at that time: “The proposals ignore the real-world, science-based assessments of pesticides’ harms, instead relying on arbitrary industry-created models. . . . The proposals follow intensive efforts by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to halt federal work on protecting wildlife from pesticides. They were released over a year after a draft biological opinion that was scuttled by the Trump administration found that the loss of pollinators from the insecticide chlorpyrifos would put hundreds of endangered species on a path to extinction. The so-called ‘refinements’ will make it easier for the EPA to claim that pesticides have no effects on endangered species.”

CBD notes that EPA, in this recent Revised Method document, has jettisoned some of the worst provisions that were in the 2019 preliminary proposal. That iteration was challenged by the Attorneys General of 10 states and Washington, DC in a suit; the plaintiffs said the proposal “is antithetical to the plain language and purpose of the ESA. By curtailing data inputs, arbitrarily narrowing the scope of findings, and discounting results that are purportedly uncertain, the Draft Method would allow EPA, through its risk assessment, to arbitrarily determine that a proposed pesticide registration or reregistration is not likely to adversely affect listed plants and animals, or is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat, prior to and without consultation with the Services.” Such consultation is required by the ESA.

CBD’s environmental health director Lori Ann Burd said, “The EPA recognized that the draft revised methods [in the preliminary proposal] were so blatantly pro-pesticide that they had to dial them back. Even so, they still fail to meet the Endangered Species Act’s requirements for determining harm to protected plants and animals. We’re in the midst of a heartbreaking wildlife extinction crisis, and the EPA’s new rules only make the situation worse.”

The Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America litigated EPA over its failure to protect endangered species from pesticide impacts. EPA failed in its June 2018 attempt to have the suit dismissed, and in October 2019, a federal district court judge in San Francisco issued an order mandating that EPA assess the risks posed, by eight of the most harmful pesticides in use in the U.S., to protected plants and animals. Those eight compounds — atrazine, carbaryl, methomyl and simazine, and the rodenticides brodifacoum, bromadiolone, warfarin, and zinc phosphide — represent more than 75 million pounds of toxic chemicals applied annually.

As a result of that successful suit, EPA used its new method to reassess the likely harms, to more than 1,500 endangered species, of two carbamate class, neurotoxic pesticides: carbaryl, an extremely toxic pesticide similar to chlorpyrifos, and methomyl. (Both these pesticides are very toxic to bird, fish and other aquatic organisms, and bees.) The preliminary results include: carbaryl is likely to harm 86% (1,542) of all endangered plants and animals, and methomyl is likely to harm 62% (1,114). The figures for adverse impacts to critical habitat are: carbaryl is likely to harm 90% of critical habitats, and methomyl is likely to harm 42% of critical habitat.

According to information secured through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, these changes were requested by the pesticide industry, and “driven by political-level appointees at the EPA, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, and the White House.” CBD’s Lori Ann Burd commented, “This disgraceful new rule prioritizes the pesticide industry’s profits over the protection of America’s most endangered animals and plants. It’s painfully clear that pesticides have a devastating effect on some of our most vulnerable species, and the Trump administration is intent on thwarting urgently needed protections.”

EHS Daily Advisor reports that the Revised Method is being “well received” in the pesticide and agricultural community. Crop Life America, a trade group that represents manufacturers and distributors of pesticides, comment, unironically, “We appreciate the Agency’s commitment to a process that is efficient, protective of species, and based on the best available science.”

In its press release, EPA also announced the opening of a 60-day public comment period on the Revised Method, commencing with publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register. (See the pre-publication notice for the draft BEs for carbaryl and methomyl, and the Revised Method document.) The release went on to say, “After carefully considering public comments, EPA will finalize the BEs. If the agency determines a pesticide may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the agency will consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services). The Services will then issue a biological opinion to determine if the population of a species would be adversely impacted and, if so, propose ways to reduce risks.” This statement strains credulity, given CBD’s assertion that “To date the EPA has never once implemented a nationwide Endangered Species Act consultation on pesticides, as required under the Act.”

Stay current on EPA’s (and other federal and state agencies’) actions on pesticides through Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog and journal, Pesticides and You. Beyond Pesticides will often alert readers to opportunities to make public comments on pending regulations. See EPA’s overview website page on making public comments here.

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

Sources: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/rump-epas-new-rules-for-assessing-pesticide-risks-ignore-many-harms-to-endangered-species-2020-03-12/ and https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2020/03/epa-revises-pesticide-be-method-under-endangered-species-act/

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2020) As COVID-19 grips the U.S. and medical workers scramble for personal protective equipment (PPE), farmworkers charged with applying pesticides are facing potential shortages of the same protective masks, gloves, and Tyvek suits. Farmworkers are a frontline community to the compounding crises of pesticide poisoning and the coronavirus pandemic.

PPE producers announced plans to increase production of masks and other gear, but orders for disposable respirators and masks may take over three months to arrive to agricultural suppliers. “All of our major suppliers is being impacted,” said Carl Atwell, an agricultural PPE provider in Wisconsin, “Whether it’s Dupont, 3M, Honeywell—they’re all being told by the government to divert supply to hospitals first.”

Worsening the dilemma, common toxic pesticides are respiratory irritants that put farmworkers at higher risk. Epidemiological studies of farmworkers link toxic pesticide exposure with asthma or asthmatic symptoms. Individuals with underlying respiratory issues are less likely to recover from COVID-19.

“This issue of workers being exposed to toxic chemicals was already a big problem before the pandemic, so I can only imagine what will happen now,” Iris Figueora, a staff attorney with Farmworker Justice, told Bloomberg Environment.

Just last month, a group of Washington farmworkers walked off a worksite because their employer was not offering sufficient PPE. After 12 to 15-hour days of spraying pesticides, “My eyes (were) constantly irritating me,” said Jorge de los Santos, a farmworker.

The standard working and living conditions of farmworkers make a susceptible environment for the spread of COVID-19. While the CDC recommends a 6-foot distance between individuals to slow the spread of the airborne virus, “The distance principle, six feet between people, does not work in agriculture,” Amadeo Sumano, a farmworker, told the Guardian. Workers often live in close quarters. Sumano, for example, shares his apartment with six roommates. The health of farmworkers is a ticking time bomb at the heart of the food supply.

Immigration status represents an additional barrier to proper healthcare and compensation for these essential workers during the pandemic. In California, the U.S.’s largest agricultural state, researchers approximate that 60-70% of farmworkers are undocumented. While the Trump administration has pledged not to enforce immigration laws against individuals seeking medical care, advocates say many are still fearful of accessing services.

Farmworkers have been deemed essential during the pandemic, but they are not offered the same kind of support as other workers. The stimulus package has billions of dollars appropriated to agricultural businesses harmed by COVID-19, but not necessarily financial support at the worker level. The majority of farmworkers will not receive the stimulus’ $1,200 checks going to taxpayers. The relief package offers guest workers emergency sick pay, but advocates say workers are unlikely to take advantage.

Farmworkers, the backbone of the nation’s food supply, are at high risk during the coronavirus pandemic, a situation worsened by the use of toxic pesticides. The issues that farmworkers face are not new – Beyond Pesticides has advocated against agricultural poisoning since the 1980’s – but this stressful situation shines a light on an already festering problem. When the pandemic ends, it is critical that we not return to toxic “normal.”  Organic agriculture offers a safer and regenerative alternative.

Sources: Bloomberg, The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, April 1, 2020) Your comments are due by Friday, April 3, end of day.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meets April 29-30 online to debate issues concerning what goes into your organic food.

Lend your voice to continuous improvement by learning about issues and submitting comments.

From the very beginning, with the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, “organic” has meant “continuous improvement.” The primary mechanism for continuous improvement in organic production is the high level of public involvement that comes from twice-annual meetings of the stakeholder board.

The second mechanism is the sunset process, which helps move synthetic substances out of organic production as the market invests in growing organic inputs and ingredients. Despite USDA’s efforts to weaken the sunset process, the 5-year cycle of review of every synthetic substance currently used in organic production and processing, offers us an opportunity to keep organic strong and strengthen any weaknesses.

Items on the NOSB agenda in April include materials allowed in organic production, as well as discussion of policies and sunset materials on which the NOSB will vote in the Fall. We have identified some priority issues of both kinds. The only voting issue on the NOSB agenda for this meeting is a petition that would allow the use of paper pots made of virgin paper as a planting aid.

To comment on these priority issues, you may click here to go to Regulations.gov and copy these comments into the comment field. Please personalize your comments.

Paper Pots
The use of paper pots as petitioned—hemp kraft paper, with hemp fibers for strength, and with the petitioned additives poses no more hazard to the soil or to organic consumers than the allowed use of recycled paper, which contains many more additives. However, this decision should not be based on a comparison with the allowed use of recycled paper, but on compliance with OFPA criteria. Although the use of the paper pots does not appear to pose any health threat, more data is needed on the biodegradability of the adhesives. The Crops Subcommittee should develop a proposal that contains an annotation clarifying the materials and manufacturing processes that will be allowed, and pots made from virgin wood pulp should not be allowed. Finally, since there will be other products that incorporate other additives, the NOSB should hold the line on allowed materials in the pots, while remaining open to amendments in the future.

Sanitizers
The Materials Subcommittee has outlined many of the issues that should be covered regarding sanitizers, but they need to be addressed within a framework that first identifies the needs for cleaning and sanitizing materials in organic production and handling. A comprehensive review of sanitizers should begin with identifying the needs of organic producers and handlers for cleaning and sanitizing materials.

Such a review should start with the questions:

1. For what purposes are cleaning and sanitizing materials needed?
2. Are specific (e.g., chlorine-based) cleaning and sanitizing materials required by law?

Both in terms of a strict reading of OFPA and common sense, all cleansers and antimicrobials used in organic production and handling should be evaluated for National List listing, regardless of subsequent rinsing.

“Inert” Ingredients
Active ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production have been carefully screened to ensure that they meet the requirements of OFPA and present little hazard to people and ecosystems, from their manufacture through their use and disposal. So-called “inert” ingredients have not received the same level of scrutiny. In addition, “inert” ingredients make of the largest part of many pesticide product formulations. As a result, the most hazardous part of pesticide products used in organic production is often these ingredients.

EPA stopped supporting the National Organic Program allowance of List 4 “inert” ingredients (which EPA classified as not of toxicological concern) 14 years ago. Since then, the NOSB has repeatedly passed recommendations to take action that would allow the NOSB to review so-called “inerts” on the same five-year schedule as other synthetic materials used in organic production in accordance with OFPA standards. The NOP has not even taken the first step of verifying the list of “inerts” that are actually used in organic-approved products. Tell the NOSB to refuse to relist List 4 “inerts” unless the NOP initiates steps to require examination of every “inert” ingredient.

Fenbendazole
The NOSB cannot rely on the 2015 Technical Review covering parasiticides used in mammalian livestock to support a decision to allow the use of fenbendazole (for parasites) in poultry. Such use does not meet OFPA criteria—it may harm the environment, allow residues in organic eggs that are not compatible with organic practices, and is not necessary for organic poultry production. The definition of emergency proposed by the Livestock Subcommittee is inadequate to protect organic consumers from fraudulent use. The NOSB should reject the use of fenbendazole in poultry.

Marine Materials
The protection of marine ecosystems is urgently important and, since marine plants are crucial to those ecosystems, it is important for all of us, as organic producers, consumers, certifiers, and regulators, to find a way to move this process forward. We must set enforceable, protective rules for the use of marine algae in organic production. Enforceability implies rules that are verified by on-site inspection and that will stand up to legal challenge. Protective rules must address not only the sustainability of the target marine algae and fish, but also the marine ecosystem and biological communities in which they live.

The NOSB has failed to move forward with overarching policy on marine materials, but faces sunset decisions on use of fish oil and kelp in processing and fish extracts in crop production. These marine products should not be relisted unless the NOSB can place restrictions that protect the marine environment.

Lend your voice to continuous improvement by learning about issues and submitting comments.

Not sure how to use our suggested language to comment? Follow these simple steps:

1. Select the text in our comments (place your cursor before the first word in the text, then press and hold down the left mouse button and, without releasing the button, move the cursor to the end of the comments).
2. Copy the selected text by selecting the Ctrl and C keys simultaneously.
3. Click on this link to to open a new tab and in that tab, place your cursor in the “Comment” box.
4. Paste the comments you copied by selecting the Ctrl and V keys simultaneously.
5. Personalize your comments before entering your contact information and selecting “Continue.”

(Beyond Pesticides, March 31, 2020) Adding to the widespread and problematic use of neonicotinoid pesticides as seed treatments, a recent study published in BioScience finds that there are significant knowledge gaps among some farmers about the seeds they are planting. The research indicates that those gaps contribute to underreporting of accurate data on the use of pesticide-coated (often with neonicotinoid pesticides) seeds — because farmers may not know what pesticides are on the seeds they plant. Pennsylvania State University reports on the study, in Phys.org, saying, “This lack of data may complicate efforts to evaluate the value of different pest management strategies, while also protecting human health and the environment.” Beyond Pesticides advocates for widespread adoption of organic, regenerative systems and practices that precludes the use of such pesticides. 

The research was conducted by a team of scientist from around the U.S., led by Claudia Hitaj, PhD, of the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, and former economist at USDA’s Economic Research Service. In the Phys.org coverage of the study, assistant professor of epidemiology and crop pathology at Penn State, Paul Esker, PhD, notes that this lack of farmer knowledge can lead to overuse of pesticides, which would increase the already considerable risks to human and environmental health.

The authors write, “Farmers, regulators, and researchers rely on pesticide use data to assess the effects of pesticides on crop yield, farm economics, off-target organisms, and human health. The publicly available pesticide use data in the United States do not currently account for pesticides applied as seed treatments. We find that seed treatment use has increased in major field crops over the last several decades but that there is a high degree of uncertainty about the extent of acreage planted with treated seeds, the amount of regional variability, and the use of certain active ingredients. One reason for this uncertainty is that farmers are less likely to know what pesticides are on their seed than they are about what pesticides are applied conventionally to their crops. This lack of information affects the quality and availability of seed treatment data and also farmers’ ability to tailor pesticide use to production and environmental goals.”

The researchers used data, for 2004–2014, from Kynetec, an independent global marketing and research company that maintains some of the most comprehensive data on U.S. pesticide use. (At least, it did until 2015, when it stopped offering information on seed treatments.) Their data shows that use of treated seed rose during that decade, especially for corn and soybeans, so that by 2014, 76% of soybean and 90% of corn crops were grown from treated seed, and 80% of the pesticides used to treat seeds were neonicotinoids (neonics), pesticides that wreak significant damage on pollinators, human health, and the broader environment.

The research team then evaluated farmer responses to questions about pesticide-coated seeds, chronicled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). Researchers looked specifically at responses for cotton in 2015, corn in 2016, wheat in 2017, and soybeans in 2018. Those results are concerning.

Though 98% of farmer respondents could name the pesticides they had applied in the field, the knowledge gap about the pesticides with which their seeds had been treated prior to planting stood out: 84% of cotton growers, but only 65% of corn growers, 62% of soybean growers, 57% of winter wheat growers, and 43% of spring wheat growers could say what those chemicals were. Some respondents did not answer the questions or said they did not know. Another worrisome metric: cotton farmers in 2015 “reported that 13% of total acreage was not treated with an insecticide and 19% was not treated with a fungicide, while simultaneously reporting the use of products containing those types of pesticides on that acreage.”

Margaret Douglas, assistant professor of environmental studies at Dickinson College, commented: “This [knowledge gap] is likely because seed is often sold with a ‘default’ treatment that contains a mix of different pesticide active ingredients, and the treated seed is exempt from some labeling requirements. Without knowing what is on their seeds, it is nearly impossible for farmers to tailor pesticide use to production and environmental goals.” Dr. Hitaj notes that the lack of clarity on what is being applied to seeds — especially for compounds that are used nearly exclusively to treat seeds — means that important data about pesticide use is not being captured in relevant data sets. She comments, “Reliable data on pesticide use is needed by regulators, farmers, and researchers to increase agricultural production and profitability and to protect human health and the environment from the adverse effects of pesticides.”

A real-world lab situation re: one of those effects presents itself in the European Union (EU). The EU banned use of three neonics in 2013; a team of researchers recently evaluated neonic residues, from 2014 through 2018, in nectar from winter-sown oilseed rape plants in France. In spite of the moratorium, residues of all three neonics were present in the nectar. The scientists conclude that persistent neonic soil residues spread broadly in the environment and substantially contaminated this major crop, thus threatening pollinators. The study did not address whether the residues were a result of seed treatment, but the question should be pursued.

Using Kynetec’s 2015 data, and those of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Pesticide National Synthesis Project (up to 2014), and comparing them with the 2004–2014 Kynetec data (all on clothianidin, another neonic), the team did see a drop in pesticides known to be used as seed treatments — the result of poor data tracking of pesticide-treated seed use. The net: there is a big hole in what’s known about use levels of pesticides used to coat seeds.

The study paper provides context: USDA’s Agricultural Chemical Use Program provides to the public use estimates only for pesticides that are applied in the field — despite direction to Congress, via the 1996 Food Quality Production Act, to collect data on pesticide use. Regulations created in 1988 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created an exemption from that mandate for “pesticide-treated articles,” which includes seeds. So, despite the increase in the use of pesticides to coat seeds, federal data on such use are incomplete, and therefore, inaccurate. This is the situation in the U.S., in which the majority of corn, soybean, wheat, and cotton acres are planted with pesticide-treated seeds.

The researchers also note, “A changing regulatory landscape is likely to increase the importance of complete and accurate data on seed treatments. In January 2020, the EPA took a step in the registration review of neonicotinoids by releasing proposed interim decisions for all five neonicotinoids registered for use in the United States. The EPA is expected to complete this process in 2021. As a result of a lawsuit settlement, the EPA must now complete Endangered Species Act effect determination for neonicotinoids, many of which are applied as seed treatments. In addition, a citizen petition to the EPA filed in 2017 seeks to eliminate an exemption for seed treated with systemic pesticides and require some pesticide-treated seed to follow the registration and labeling requirements as provided by FIFRA. However, this petition has no direct impact on regulations.”

Recommendations made by the authors include: (1) better dissemination of information about the active ingredients contained in treated seed products on public websites, (2) improved labelling of pesticide-treated seeds so that all the ingredient compounds are made clear and obvious to the farmer or user, (3) collection of data about seed treatment products through seed retailers and other relevant companies, and (4) information about planting locations of treated seeds, which could help in evaluating the local environmental effects of this kind of pesticide use.

The primary takeaway from this study is that such data matter. They are a critical aspect of the science on which governmental policies and regulations should be based. The federal government should at the very least ensure accurate and comprehensive collection of data on pesticide use, through its relevant agencies. EPA should remove from its regulations the exemption of “pesticide-treated articles.” Were these agencies operating with public and environmental health as higher priorities, they would attend to the myriad ways in which ecosystems, organisms, and people are harmed by pesticide use.

Dr. Esker commented, “The lack of knowledge by farmers about the pesticides applied to seed is an example of why it is important to maintain a strong university extension system that can provide up-to-date information about different seed treatments, what these treatments do, and what the empirical data show. . . . This is also an opportunity for further collaboration among different disciplines, like agronomy, plant pathology, entomology, [and] economics and environmental science, to address farm issues from a whole-system perspective.” That whole system perspective, Beyond Pesticides believes, ought to focus on the transition to organic and regenerative agricultural practices, which would obviate the need for toxic chemical “control” in managing crops and other land parcels.

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

Sources: https://phys.org/news/2020-03-pesticide-seed-coatings-widespread-underreported.html and https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biaa019/5805569

NOTICE: Beyond Pesticides urges Governors to stop the use of lawn pesticides during the COVID-19 crisis because the toxic chemicals used are typically immune and respiratory system toxicants, elevating key risk factors for those vulnerable to coronavirus hazards. Contact your Governor to classify chemical lawn care as non-essential.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2020) Last week, Beyond Pesticides sued TruGreen, the national chemical landscaping company, for misrepresenting the safety of the toxic chemicals that it uses to treat lawns. The case is Beyond Pesticides v. TruGreen (DC Superior Court, Case No. 2020CA001973B, March, 20, 2020). At the same time, the organization is urging all states to prohibit toxic chemical spraying in neighborhoods as non-essential and hazardous. Widespread exposure to lawn pesticides, which are immune system and respiratory toxicants, can elevate serious risk factors associated with COVID-19 (coronavirus).

As part of its marketing, TruGreen tells consumers that it offers environmentally friendly, sustainable lawn care services that use no chemicals that may cause cancer, allergic reactions, or other health or environmental harms. These claims, according to Beyond Pesticides’ complaint, are false and deceptive and illegal under the laws of the District of Columbia.

Advocates suggest that during the COVID-19 crisis the cessation of pesticide applications in neighborhoods across the U.S. will reduce involuntary exposure to chemicals that exacerbate respiratory and immune system illness and risk factors associated with coronavirus. Lawn care services have been determined by some states to be non-essential services and are prohibited from applying chemicals and delivering other lawn services. However, TruGreen has notified customers that it will continue to deliver services where permitted. Some companies are reporting cancellations. The litigation is intended to curtail use of hazardous pesticides long-term.

TruGreen makes several claims to consumers that, according to the lawsuit, the company knows to be false. As stated in the complaint, “TruGreen purports to offer environmentally friendly, sustainable lawn care services that use no chemicals that may cause cancer, allergic reactions, or other health or environmental harms.” Beyond Pesticides shows that these claims are false and deceptive.

Quoting from TruGreen’s information to consumers, identified as false and deceptive in the ligitation:

“We will not approve products containing known or probable human carcinogens as defined by the U.S. EPA, the National Toxicology Program, or the International Agency for Research in Cancer [IARC].”

“We do not approve products that are known skin sensitizers or that may produce allergic reactions.”

“We do not approve products known or thought likely to leach to groundwater when applied to lawns.”

In fact, TruGreen uses the weed killer glyphosate (Roundup), which is identified by IARC of the World Health Organization as probably carcinogenic. It uses a chlorophenoxy (Tri-Power) another weed killer whose label warns of “irreversible eye damage” and “allergic reactions.” Another hazardous pesticide identified in the lawsuit is triclorfon (Dylox), a neurotoxic organophosate insecticide.

As stated in the complaint, TruGreen’ s representations are intended to, and do, portray to consumers that its lawn care services are environmentally responsible and free from harmful chemicals.

“It’s time that chemical lawn care companies to stop deceiving the public and their customers with deceptive, misleading, and false information on the real hazards of the pesticide they use,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “These practices are particularly abhorrent, given the availability of organic compatible products that do not cause harm,” said Mr. Feldman.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the adoption of organic land management, a systems approach that eliminates toxic chemical pesticides and fertilizers and builds organic matter and soil biology as a means of cycling nutrients for plant health. This approach is successfully and economically used in managing lawns, parks, and playing fields across the country.

TruGreen’s false and misleading representations and omissions violate the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“DC CPPA”), D.C. Code§§ 28-3901, et seq. Beyond Pesticides is represented by the Richman Law Group in New York City.

For more information on organic land management of lawns, parks, and playing fields, see Beyond Pesticides Lawns and Landscapes page.

Source: Beyond Pesticides v. TruGreen

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2020) Faced with the COVID-19 (coronavirus) threat, there is tremendous pressure to use toxic disinfectants, despite the availability of safer products. In fact, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is recommending 70% alcohol for surface disinfection, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs is advising the use of unnecessarily toxic substances, and reducing standards that govern their allowance on the market. EPA’s pesticide program allowed 70 new disinfectants yesterday, at the same time that the agency overall announced that it is waiving enforcement of environmental standards during the coronavirus outbreak—a devastating blow to public health and environmental protection.

Beyond Pesticides, in its factsheet, Protecting Yourself from COVID-19 (coronavirus) without Toxic Sanitizers and Disinfectants, says, “Fight the coronavirus with common sense prevention and safer disinfection products. Avoid products that increase vulnerability to respiratory problems.” (See the factsheet below.)

To some extent, the expanded allowance of disinfection products on top of the 281 disinfectants previously permitted has been made possible by relaxing oversight on so-called “inert” or other ingredients that are not disclosed on product labels and often highly toxic. The agency says it is allowing the use of these “inerts” with “no significant differences” compared to already-approved ingredients. Since inerts are not disclosed to the public and subject to limited EPA oversight, identifying potential contaminants or hazardous byproducts is critical to determining product safety.

According to The Hill newspaper, “EPA issued a sweeping suspension of its enforcement of environmental laws Thursday [March 26], telling companies they would not need to meet environmental standards during the coronavirus outbreak.” Specific to surface disinfectants, EPA announced the following yesterday:

“Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took steps to provide additional flexibilities to manufacturers of disinfectants and other pesticides. EPA intends for these flexibilities to increase the availability of products for Americans to use against the novel coronavirus.”

EPA is responsible for regulating surface disinfectants, while the Food and Drug Administration regulates hand sanitizers. Without adequate regulations and given the availability of safer alternative disinfectants, people, as well as local and state governments, are urged to take protective action. See Beyond Pesticides factsheet.

___________

Protecting Yourself from COVID-19 (coronavirus) without Toxic Sanitizers and Disinfectants.

Fight the coronavirus with common sense prevention and safer disinfection products. Avoid products that increase vulnerability to respiratory problems.             

WHY THE CONCERN ABOUT TOXIC SANITIZERS AND DISINFECTION PRODUCTS

We have learned through the COVID-19 crisis that there are people who are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. These are generally people who have a pre-existing condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system. With the management of viral and bacterial infections, it is always important that we do not exacerbate the risk to individuals 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 protect us without using toxic products that increase risk factors.

PREVENTION

The good news is that toxic chemicals are not necessary to prevent exposure to COVID-19 and eliminate the virus. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) urges simple measures to prevent exposure:

• Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.
• Stay home when you are sick.
• Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.

 How it works: The best way to prevent any infectious disease transmission is to stay out of contact with those who have already contracted the disease.

HAND CLEANING AND SANITIZING

Eliminating the Virus on Hands

• Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. If soap and water are not readily available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol. (See list of products below.) Always wash hands with soap and water if hands are visibly dirty.

How it works: Soap breaks down the virus’s fat membrane—and the infectious material falls apart—as long as you rub the soap on your hands for at least 20 seconds. Alcohol wipes with 60% alcohol do the same thing. These chemicals break down the virus by a similar process, by breaking down the lipid covering of the virus. [1]                                                       

Only products with active ingredients ethanol, isopropanol, or benzalkonium chloride can qualify as “hand sanitizers” according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). An alcohol-based hand sanitizer should contain at least 60% alcohol in order to be effective.[2] Glycerol or aloe as part of the remainder can help counter the drying effects of alcohol on the skin.

The Bad: Toxic Sanitizers

Avoid hand sanitizers containing benzalkonium chloride (BAC), which is a quaternary ammonium compound (or “quat”). It is an irritant that can cause asthmatic reactions and adversely affect the respiratory system.[3]^,[4] BAC is also associated with changes in neurodevelopment,[5] selection for antibiotic resistance,[6] and provoking irritant and/or contact dermatitis.[7]

DISINFECTING SURFACES

Eliminating the Virus on Surfaces

• Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces using regular household cleaning sprays or wipes that contain 70% alcohol. (See list of products below.)

Like handwashing with soap or wipes with 60% alcohol, the virus on surfaces can be detached and broken down with soap and alcohol. [8]

The Good: Natural-based substances tend to be safer, while still effective at eliminating the virus on surfaces. Look for products with the following active ingredients (* indicates listed by EPA’s Design for the Environment Program (DfE)[9]):

Citric acid*
Ethanol*
Isopropanol*
L-lactic acid*
Hydrogen peroxide*
Sodium bisulfate*
Thymol

The Bad: EPA has approved a long list of products[10] that will eliminate the COVID-19 virus on surfaces. The list includes products containing toxic chemicals, such as chlorine bleach, peroxyacetic acid, quaternary ammonium compounds or “quats,” sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione, and hydrochloric acid. Exposure to these chemicals are associated with a long list of adverse effects, from asthma to cancer.[11]^,[12]

Avoid products containing:

Peroxyacetic acid (peracetic acid)[13]
Chlorine compounds (sodium hypochlorite, hypochlorous acid, sodium chlorite)
Sodium Dichloro-S-Triazinetrione
Quaternary Ammonium compounds (quats)
Phenolic compounds
Glycolic acid
Octanoic acid[14]

All of these ingredients are associated with harm to the respiratory system.[15]^{,[16],[17],[18],[19],[20]} In addition, some quats have been shown to cause mutations, lower fertility, and increase antibiotic resistance.[21] Phenolic compounds include a wide range of toxic chemicals, including cresols, hexachlorobenzene, and chlorophenols. Health effects from breathing or exposure to the skin include headaches, burning eyes, muscle tremors, skin burns, irregular heart beat, severe injury to heart, liver, kidneys, and lungs, cancer, and death.[22]^,[23]

STAY SAFE

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.

References
[1] Pall Thordarson, 2020. The science of soap – here’s how it kills the coronavirus. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/12/science-soap-kills-coronavirus-alcohol-based-disinfectants. See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2pMVimI2bw&feature=youtu.be.
[2] CDC Statement for Healthcare Personnel on Hand Hygiene during the Response to the International Emergence of COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/infection-control/hcp-hand-sanitizer.html.
[3] https://prhe.ucsf.edu/sites/g/files/tkssra341/f/Fact%20Sheet_Information%20for%20Workers.pdf.
[4] Choi, H.Y., Lee, Y.H., Lim, C.H., Kim, Y.S., Lee, I.S., Jo, J.M., Lee, H.Y., Cha, H.G., Woo, H.J. and Seo, D.S., 2020. Assessment of respiratory and systemic toxicity of Benzalkonium chloride following a 14-day inhalation study in rats. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 17(1), p.5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12989-020-0339-8
[5] Herron, J.M., 2019. The Effects of Benzalkonium Chloride Disinfectants on Lipid Homeostasis and Neurodevelopment (Doctoral dissertation).
[6] Kim, M., Weigand, M.R., Oh, S., Hatt, J.K., Krishnan, R., Tezel, U., Pavlostathis, S.G. and Konstantinidis, K.T., 2018. Widely used benzalkonium chloride disinfectants can promote antibiotic resistance. Applied and environmental microbiology, 84(17), pp.e01201-18.
[7] Lachenmeier, D.W., 2016. Antiseptic Drugs and Disinfectants. In Side Effects of Drugs Annual (Vol. 38, pp. 211-216). Elsevier.
[8] Kampf, G., Todt, D., Pfaender, S. and Steinmann, E., 2020. Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and its inactivation with biocidal agents. Journal of Hospital Infection.
[9] https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-labels/design-environment-logo-antimicrobial-pesticide-products.
[10] https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2.
[11] https://prhe.ucsf.edu/sites/g/files/tkssra341/f/Fact%20Sheet_Information%20for%20Workers.pdf.
[12] Agency on Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2008. ToxFAQs for Chlorophenol. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp107-c1.pdf.
[13] Peracetic acid is on EPA’s DfE list, but is considered to pose an asthma risk.
[14]Octanoic acid is listed on EPA’s Safer Chemical Ingredients List under surfactants, which are listed based on environmental toxicity and biodegradation. But it is corrosive to skin https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15370/7/3/1.
[15] https://prhe.ucsf.edu/sites/g/files/tkssra341/f/Fact%20Sheet_Information%20for%20Workers.pdf.
[16] Holm, S.M., Leonard, V., Durrani, T. and Miller, M.D., 2019. Do we know how best to disinfect child care sites in the United States? A review of available disinfectant efficacy data and health risks of the major disinfectant classes. American journal of infection control, 47(1), pp.82-91.
[17] Agency on Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2008. ToxFAQs for Phenol. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/TF.asp?id=147&tid=27.
[18] Weiselberg, R. and Nelson, L.S., 2011. A Toxic Swimming Pool Hazard. EMERGENCY MEDICINE. https://mdedge-files-live.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/043040019.pdf.
[19] Glycolic acid MSDS.
https://www.cdhfinechemical.com/images/product/msds/18_352140617_GlycolicAcid-CASNO-79-14-1-MSDS.pdf.
[20] European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Octanoic Acid Registration Dossier. https://echa.europa.eu/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/15370/7/3/1
[21] Holm, S.M., Leonard, V., Durrani, T. and Miller, M.D., 2019. Do we know how best to disinfect child care sites in the United States? A review of available disinfectant efficacy data and health risks of the major disinfectant classes. American journal of infection control, 47(1), pp.82-91. https://www.ajicjournal.org/article/S0196-6553(18)30731-4/fulltext#sec0018.
[22] Agency on Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2008. ToxFAQs for Phenol. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/TF.asp?id=147&tid=27
[23] Agency on Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2008. ToxFAQs for Chlorophenol. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp107-c1.pdf.

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

Source: The Hill, CDC, EPA

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2020) An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determination could allow toxic antimicrobial nanosilver to be registered for use in textiles, including clothing, according to Bloomberg Environment. Nanotechnology products harm human, environmental, and animal health. Despite this, EPA’s preliminary conclusion approves the registration of nanosilver-containing Polyguard as a textile “protectant.” 

Public challenges have blocked nanosilver registration in the past when courts found EPA lacks the authority to register these toxic particles. “They’ve failed to collect data about potential exposure routes for nanosilver products, including textiles, which toddlers or pets could chew or put in their mouths,” says Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the Center for Food Safety. “Another challenge is how do you accurately test the actual product and what data do you have which suggests that other kinds of nanosilver work the same way?” 

Nanosilver, or silver nanoparticles, are microscopic particles that are used as antimicrobials, which kill bacteria and fungi. They range in size from 1-100 nanometers (nm) across or 0.1% the diameter of a human hair.  Some research attributes nanosilver toxicity impacts to its small size, which allows it to be absorbed through the skin and enter the bloodstream and lymphatic system to disrupt normal organ function. The use of nanosilver for commercial consumption increases exposure to humans through ingestion, absorption, and inhalation. 

A 2017 lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for Food Safety successfully disputed EPA on the conditional registration of the nanosilver-based NSPW-L30SS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against EPA since there was no evidence of “public interest.” Advocates argue that consumer goods infused with nanosilver have no place in the consumer market and EPA should deny registration of nanosilver-based Polyguard as a pesticide. 

Nanosilver has antimicrobial properties that control the growth of odorous bacteria, mold, fungus, algae, and mildew on consumer products. Various consumer goods incorporate silver nanoparticles, such as clothing, kitchenware, toys, and cosmetics. Though EPA now restricts nanosilver use to fewer products, the agency plans to approve Polyguard (a product containing nanosilver) for use in finished textiles. 

In nanoscale form, silver tends to have higher toxicity than other metals. Many of the nanosilver products for commercial use disperse into the environment via drains. Washing nanosilver products, like textiles, deposit nanoparticles into the water waste and surface waters. So, while nanosilver has natural antibiotic properties, nanosilver exposure creates a myriad of health risks in humans, animals, and the environment.

To learn more concerning nanosilver toxicity to human, animal health, and the environment, visit Beyond Pesticides’ antibacterial webpage. Precautions against nanoparticle toxicity involve knowledge of what products to buy to reduce the risk of exposure. The Center for Food Safety hosts a comprehensive list of nanosilver products to avoid. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies hosts an expansive, dynamic list of all nanosilver-based materials in consumer products. For more information about nanoparticle regulation, visit the nanosilver regulatory issues page. 

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

Sources: Bloomberg  Environment,  IOPScience, Frontiers, Springer