(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2020) Facing approximately 125,000 lawsuits on cancer caused by the weed killer Roundup™ (glyphosate), Bayer/Monsanto announced yesterday that it will pay up to $10.9 billion to resolve current and potential future litigation. According to Bayer, the settlement will “bring closure” to approximately 75% of current Roundup™ litigation. “The company will make a payment of $8.8 billion to $9.6 billion to resolve the current Roundup™ litigation, including an allowance expected to cover unresolved claims, and $1.25 billion to support a separate class agreement to address potential future litigation,” according to Bayer’s press release. At the same time the company announced a $400 million settlement with farmers whose crops have been damaged by the weed killer dicamba and $820 million for PCB water litigation. Bayer is a German multinational pharmaceutical and chemical company that purchased Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018. Bayer’s stock price increased by 2.5% after the news of the settlements.

Bayer Settles, but Defends the Safety of Roundup™
As expected, Bayer is not acknowledging any harm caused by glyphosate. According to chief executive officer of Bayer, Werner Baumann, “The decision to resolve the Roundup™ litigation enables us to focus fully on the critical supply of healthcare and food. It will also return the conversation about the safety and utility of glyphosate-based herbicides to the scientific and regulatory arena and to the full body of science.” After expressing sympathy for victims of non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Mr. Baumann said, “The extensive body of science indicates that Roundup™ does not cause cancer, and therefore, is not responsible for the illnesses alleged in this litigation.” He continued, “We stand strongly behind our glyphosate-based herbicides, which are among the most rigorously studied products of their kind, and four decades of science support their safety and that they are not carcinogenic.” He points to EPA’s Interim Registration Review Decision, issued in January, which allows continued use of glyphosate.

Roundup™ Causes Cancer, according to Science
Concern about glyphosate-based pesticides swelled when the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen in 2015. Beyond Pesticides has covered the relationship of glyphosate (and the adjuvant ingredients in formulations) to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproduction, and renal and hepatic damage, in addition to its toxicity to fish and other aquatic organisms. Contrary to scientific consensus and to the IARC’s conclu, EPA, which has experienced heightened politicization of its decisions under the Trump administration, maintains that glyphosate formulations are “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” as it posited in a decision announced in May 2019. EPA took this step even in the face of an April 2019 report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) — an agency of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — which evidenced findings that support glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

The three cases that have gone to trial (see below) will continue through the appeals process and are not covered by the settlement. It is important for the company to continue these cases as the appeals will provide legal guidance going forward. In an appellate court filing, the U.S. government expressed its specific support for the company’s preemption arguments, asserting that state law warning claims in the Roundup™ litigation conflict with U.S. federal law, requiring no cancer warning, and must be dismissed. Just this week, a federal judge in California found that the weight of scientific evidence does not support the state’s Proposition 65 cancer warning requirement for glyphosate-based herbicides — a ruling that reinforces the very arguments the company has made at trial. Potential future cases will be governed by a class agreement which is subject to court approval. The agreement includes the establishment of a class of potential future plaintiffs and the creation of an independent Class Science Panel. The Class Science Panel will determine whether Roundup™ can cause NHL.

Settlement Will Stop Jury Trials
Both the class and company will be bound by the Class Science Panel’s determination on this question of general causation, taking this decision out of the jury trial setting, where Bayer has a poor track record. If the Class Science Panel determines that a causal connection between Roundup™ and NHL is not established, class members will be barred from claiming otherwise in any future litigation against the company. The Class Science Panel’s determination is expected to take several years. Class members will not be permitted to proceed with Roundup™ claims prior to the Class Science Panel’s determination, and cannot seek punitive damages. The agreed funding is capped at $1.25 billion and will support research into treatment of NHL, NHL diagnostic programs in underserved areas, and assistance payments to class members who develop NHL before the Class Science Panel’s determination and are eligible on a need basis for assistance during that period.

The company said that before deciding to settle, it considered the alternative course of continuing to litigate Roundup™ cases. In the company’s risk assessment, the potential negative outcomes of further litigation, including more advertising and growing numbers of plaintiffs, upwards of twenty trials per year and uncertain jury outcomes, and associated reputational and business impacts, would substantially exceed the settlement and related costs.

“Taking account of various options, I am convinced this plan provides a comprehensive, reasonable solution to the complex, contested issues presented by this litigation,” said attorney John Beisner, a consultant to Bayer’s Supervisory Board and a mass tort expert who leads Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP’s Mass Torts, Insurance and Consumer Litigation Practice Group.

Big Jury Verdicts for Victims of Roundup™
In May 2019, a California jury awarded plaintiffs in the third damages lawsuit on the weed killer Roundup™ over $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages. The jury found that Monsanto “engaged in conduct with malice, oppression or fraud committed by one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto.” Plaintiffs Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a couple in their seventies, used Roundup™, with the active ingredient glyphosate, since the 1970s to maintain their yard around their home and other properties that they owned. The couple did not wear protective gear when using Roundup™ because Monsanto marketed the product as “safe.” Mrs. Pilliod was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in 2011; Mr. Pilliod’s diagnosis followed in 2015. The Pilliod v. Monsanto jury came to its decision based on evidence, not only of the herbicide’s carcinogenicity, but also of Monsanto’s role in suppressing and discrediting independent findings regarding Roundup™ toxicity. In an interview with U.S. Right to Know’s Carey Gillam, co-lead trial counsel Michael Miller said, “Unlike the first two Monsanto trials, where the judges severely limited the amount of plaintiffs’ evidence, we were finally allowed to show a jury the mountain of evidence showing Monsanto’s manipulation of science, the media and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda despite Roundup’s severe harm to the animal kingdom and humankind.”

The Pilliod trial adds to the growing list of major wins for plaintiffs who attribute their suffering from cancer to Monsanto’s “malice, oppression or fraud.” In the summer of 2018, California groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson won a $289 million jury verdict against Monsanto for his development of NHL after consistent exposure to Roundup™. The jury awarded him $39 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages, finding that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression.” That amount was later amended by the judge to a total of $78 million. In the second federal court case, again in California, the jury found unanimously that Edwin Hardeman’s development of NHL was substantially caused by Roundup™ and awarded him $80 million.

Misleading on “Sustainable Agriculture”
Bayer, which expresses a long-term commitment to “sustainable agriculture,” continues to push genetic engineering and herbicide tolerant crops, despite increasing weed resistance to glyphosate that threatens farmers’ financial viability. In fact, on June 3, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 2018 conditional registration of three dicamba weed killer products for use on an estimated 60 million acres of DT (dicamba-tolerant through genetic modification/engineering) soybeans and cotton, pointing to the crop damage caused by the herbicide.

Calling for a Transformation to Organic
The tragedy caused by glyphosate and dicamba represents the tip of the iceberg that is chemical-intensive agriculture. While the litigation costs and jury verdicts on individual pesticides create an economic disincentive for continued production of hazardous pesticides and chemical-dependency in agriculture, the Bayer settlement indicates that it is not the silver bullet to put an end to continued hazardous pesticide use—even continued use of the chemical at issue, glyphosate. And, as a federal court decision banning three dicamba products was being announced this month, new formulations of dicamba and new herbicide-tolerant crops were being brought on to the market. This phenomenon—the pesticide treadmill—kicks the toxic pesticide can down the road, as the next generation of hazardous pesticides are developed for no other reason than the profits captured by multinational corporations and their shareholders. Meanwhile, the hazards associated the toxic chemicals being developed and spread across the environment are raising complex challenges for the sustainability of life on an individual and global scale. The use of these chemicals is unnecessary to meet our food production and quality of life needs because there are viable alternatives that are compatible with biological systems. Beyond Pesticides calls for the urgent adoption of organic practices in the management of agriculture, landscapes, and buildings. Join Beyond Pesticides’ campaign to transition society to organic on farms and in communities. Have a pest problem? Solve it without toxic chemicals; see ManageSafe.

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

Source: Bayer press release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2020) Communities across the U.S. are restricting the use of biosolids (sewage sludge) in their jurisdictions, as researchers at Michigan Tech plan to study whether Covid-19 can persist in wastewater and sewage sludge. While relatively unknown to many city-dwellers, the use of recycled human waste on farm fields is a common practice in many rural communities throughout the country. Issues associated with smell, runoff, and contamination are often the impetus for local leaders to investigate and consider banning their spread, but the potential for the waste to vector coronavirus gives the issue a new sense of urgency.   

In Oklahoma, the small town of Luther earlier this month voted to ban the use of biosolids on farmland. The issue was brought to town leaders after a report from FOX 25 found that a local sewer plant was spreading the waste on area farmlands. “Our goal with the biosolids program is to get beneficial reuse rather than just taking it to a landfill and filling up a landfill with this…And [the farmers] get it for free and of course, the farmers line up for this,” Kris Neifing, Director of Water Resources for Edmond, OK, told FOX 25.

Local leaders looked into the safety of biosolid use, and found concerning information, including a report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General, which identified over 350 pollutants in biosolids, 61 of which are considered hazardous. “The more research I did, the more I realized this is something we really need to fight and we have to all come together,” said local resident and farmer Saundra Traywick to reporters. “The EPA only requires testing for nine to twelve contaminants. There’s 250 contaminants that aren’t being tested for.”

Ms. Traywick noted that Oklahoma City did not use biosolids on their parks and golf courses. “This is a health issue for a lot of people especially if you are immunocompromised, you do not want to be near this stuff,” Ms. Traywick told FOX 25. After the victory in Luther, Ms. Traywick plans to move her ban campaign to Oklahoma County.

Local leaders in Indian River County, FL have also taken action against sewage sludge applications in their community. After first banning use in 2018 due to concerns over runoff into Blue Cyprus Lake causing toxic algae blooms, TCPalm reports that the county approved a six month extension on the moratorium. Some county commissioners are calling on the community to make the ban permanent.

While biosolids and wastewater have long been sources of exposure concern as it pertains to pesticides, industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and household chemicals, researchers at Michigan Tech are exploring a new potential contaminant: Covid-19. A team of scientists plans to understand its fate after an infected person’s waste enters the wastewater stream.

“We’re not just interested in seeing if the virus is in the wastewater — it undoubtedly will be. We want to know what happens to the virus in wastewater and biosolids,” said Jennifer Becker, PhD, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. “We want to make sure the SARS-CoV-2 virus particles are no longer infectious when we spread biosolids. If any of the virus particles stay in the wastewater stream during treatment, what happens when wastewater is discharged to the environment? We know almost nothing about the answer to this question right now.

The researchers “do not want to take it for granted” that current water treatment technologies are removing coronavirus from the waste stream.

Ms. Traywick in Oklahoma noted in her concerns the potential for another human disease – strep and staph bacteria – to persist in sewage sludge. “We have tested sludge that contains staph and strep. That’s huge for me. My daughter got an autoimmune disease from a case of strep that attacked her brain. I’m not OK with humanure being applied on fields where we have to breathe it and it has confirmed strep in it,” Traywick said.

In many parts of the country, it is often low-income and people of color communities that are most impacted by the hazards of waste pollution. Localities are encouraged to take a preventative approach to the range of concerns associated with biosolids. A ban is strongly recommended due to the range of chemical contaminants that cannot be filtered out, but in the least, a moratorium for residential safety is appropriate as researchers make a determination whether the pandemic virus can persist and spread through biosolids applications. Beyond immediate concerns associated with drift from biosolid application sites are issues related to the safety of foods that have had wastewater or biosolids applied to them.  

Beyond Pesticides has produced extensive reports on contamination issues associated with reusing waste from sewer treatment plants. For more information see Biosolids or Biohazards, and Wastewater Irrigation on Farms Contaminates Food. Under the Organic Foods Production Act, certified organic production and food labeled USDA organic, may not be produced with biosolids or fertilizers containing biosolids. If you’d like to work to stop the use of biosolids in your community, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

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

Source: FOX25, TCPalm, Michigan Tech

(Beyond Pesticides, June 23, 2020) Next-generation systemic insecticides, billed by the agrichemical industry as “safer for bees” than neonicotinoids, have been found to stress and kill honey bees. As reported, a study by researchers at Oregon State University in the journal PLOS One, sulfoxaflor and flupyradifurone (in the products Transform and Sivanto, respectively) were found to increase apoptosis (cell death) and increase oxidative stress in exposed honey bees.

The study indicates that, “With the recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval for use of both flupyradifurone and sulfoxaflor, and with the growing concern regarding pollinator health, it is important to better understand any potential negative impacts (especially sub-lethal) of these pesticides on bees.” However, this statement begs the question ‘why these two new bee-toxic pesticide were approved by EPA in the first place.’

This process is familiar and frustrating to those who continue to fight against the decline of pollinators: the chemical industry introduces and EPA approves new toxic pesticides marketed as “safer” to the specific problem caused by its older products, only to find out through independent and academic research that the problem is not solved in the least.

Researchers conducted two exposure assessments: one six-hour long study, and another 10-day study. In both, pesticides were mixed at field application rates corresponding to that used to manage pests such as aphids in apple, citrus, or other fruiting vegetable crops. An unexposed control group was established. Bees in the lab were knocked out using carbon dioxide, and exposed to the pesticides through a misting application.

For the six-hour study, in the Transform (sulfoxaflor) exposed group, so many honey bees died within the six hour contact window that it was determined to be “unfeasible” to continue testing sulfoxaflor in the 10-day study. Sivanto (flupyradifurone)- exposed pollinators in the 10 day group were found to result in sub-lethal impacts that shortened honey bee life spans. “The average life span of a worker honeybee is five to six weeks in spring and summer, so if you are reducing its life span by five to 10 days, that’s a huge problem,” said Ramesh Sagili, PhD, study coauthor. “Reduced longevity resulting from oxidative stress could negatively affect colony population and ultimately compromise colony fitness.” Changes were also observed in sugar syrup and water consumption between the control and pesticide-exposed honey bees.

Independent scientific data has already been established on the harm these pesticides pose to pollinators. Last year, EPA registered new uses of sulfoxaflor, despite these warning signs. “Proposing to register sulfoxaflor for use on bee-attractive crops, in the midst of an ongoing pollinator crisis, is the height of irresponsibility,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director for Beyond Pesticides in an interview for Bloomberg Environment. “When all of the available data points to significant risks to pollinators from use of this chemical, we must face the facts: EPA is working towards the protection of pesticide industry, not the environment,” he said.  EPA is in the midst of a lawsuit challenging its approval of sulfoxaflor.

EPA’s own registration documents acknowledge the grave risks flupyradifurone poses to honey bees. “While the acute oral toxicity study indicates that flupyradifurone is highly toxic to individual adult honey bees, longer-term laboratory-based studies of both larval and adult bees show no adverse effects up to the highest dietary concentration tested,” the documents indicate. Moreover, this recent study appears to poke holes in EPA’s determination that long-term effects are not likely to be adverse.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA) was amended last year by Representative Blumenhauer to include immediate restrictions in the use of flypyradifurone and sulfoxaflor, in addition to the neonicotinoid insecticides that continue to poison pollinator populations. Take action by telling your Congressional representative to cosponsor SAPA.

In this time, Beyond Pesticides is also urging individuals to further consider actions that protect people as well as pollinators. A society with systemic racism does not respect the rights of low-income and black and brown people and is not one with the capacity to solve the pollinator crisis; it is not one that can help repair the natural world. We must advance systemic change on all fronts to protect people and the natural world if the future is to be sustainable.

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

Source: PLOS One, Science Daily press release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2020) In the wake of the national groundswell for equity and justice in the face of rampant inequality and police brutality against people of color, we acknowledge, during Pollinator Week, holistic actions are needed to solve systemic societal problems that cause racial disparities. Those fighting for environmental justice understand that the harms inflicted by toxic chemical production and use cause disproportionate adverse effects on people of color—from fenceline communities near chemical production plants, to the hazardous and inhumane working conditions in agricultural fields, to the elevated risk factors for black and brown people from toxic pesticide exposure patterns. 

Pollinator Week reminds us that we must nurture the ecosystem, which we depend on for life, with a fierce commitment to its inhabitants and a focus on those at highest risk. Therefore, this week is a time to renew our commitment to environmental justice and seek the adoption of policies and practices in our communities, and across the nation and the world, that recognize the urgency to address the disproportionate harm inflicted by toxic pesticide use. 

TAKE ACTION! Here are three things you can do today.

Protect Low-Income and People of Color Communities—As The Black Institute in New York City wrote in its report, Poison Parks (2020), “Unfortunately, people of color that live in low-income neighborhoods bear the brunt of poor environmental policy and suffer from environmental racism.” 

As quoted in the report by Reverend Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr., founder of the United Church Commission on Racial Justice, “Environmental racism is racial discrimination in environmental policy-making. It is racial discrimination in the enforcement of regulation and laws, in the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste disposal and the siting of polluting industries. It is racial discrimination in the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in communities of color; and, it is racial discrimination in the history of excluding people of color from mainstream environmental groups, decision-making boards, commissions, and regulatory bodies.”

People in communities of color are more likely to be exposed to toxic pesticides and other forms of pollution. As white and more affluent communities influence law and policy to stop industrial site construction and toxic chemical exposure, polluting industries target low-income and people of color areas. While wealthy and white individuals have the opportunity to manage their lawns without toxic pesticides, low-income and black and brown families, particularly those in urban areas with dense housing, often have public parks as their only green space. In its report, The Black Institute documents New York City public spaces in low-income people of color communities being sprayed with the weed killer glyphosate at significantly higher rates than other parts of the city. 

Green space is a critical component of a healthy ecosystem that we depend on for public health. Studies find that throughout the country, urban low-income and people of color communities have less access to healthy outdoor areas. Poisoning the few parcels of green space communities of color have access to is a grave injustice. By expanding access to pesticide-free green spaces, we expand the ability for people in low-income and people of color communities to experience the joy and wonders of the natural world. Creating these lasting connections with the natural world is interwoven with a healthy ecosystem that supports critical species, such as pollinators. We protect people when we protect pollinators.

Protect Workers—Farmworkers are at disproportionate risk of pesticide poisoning. According to Farmworker Justice, 76% of all farmworkers identify as Latino/Hispanic. Most are men; 28% are female. The majority are married with children. For the critical work they perform, farmworkers receive poverty wages, averaging under $20,000 a year. The average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. This is similar to the life expectancy of individuals living in the 1850s. 

Farmworkers are not covered under the laws of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), but by inadequate federal pesticide law known as worker protection regulations, governed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It took over 25 years to introduce modest updates to these rules (under the Obama Administration in 2015), but the Trump Administration immediately began to unwind farmworker safeguards. The Administration recently put forth proposals that would eliminate, reduce, or weaken application exclusion zones (buffer areas where individuals are not supposed to enter during a pesticide application) and curtail labor rights for both foreign and domestic farmworkers.

As Farmworker Justice wrote, “At the same time that the Administration seeks to transform the farm labor force of 2.4 million people into a workforce of 21st-century indentured servants, it is demonizing hard-working immigrants and ratcheting up cruel, heartless and counterproductive arrests and deportations, targeting many of our nation’s current experienced and valued farmworkers.”
Protecting farmworkers from toxic chemicals will lead to heathier foods and healthier pollinator populations. Demand justice and just conditions; stand in solidarity with farmworkers. 

Demand Food Justice—Low-income and people of color are more likely to live in areas with little to no access to fresh, healthy foods. Moreover, when there is some access to this food, fruits and vegetables are often prohibitively expensive. Farmers markets and organic products are often out of reach due to their expense, distance, and operating times. 

Foods that are most affordable are often conventional products treated with toxic pesticides. Not only do these chemicals put individuals at greater risk of pesticide induced diseases, they also poison farmworkers and their families. 

Increasing people’s access to healthy, pesticide-free foods will protect pollinators. Declines in pollinator populations are likely to increase global malnutrition and disease. Vulnerable communities are most likely to be impacted by this effect. Produce will not disappear overnight, but become increasingly expensive and out of reach, particularly for those already living in areas with precarious access to fresh foods. 

Support Black Lives Matter—A systemically racist culture that does not respect the rights of low-income and black and brown people is not one with the capacity to solve the pollinator crisis; it is not one that can help repair the natural world. Beyond Pesticides stands with Black Lives Matter. Read our statement. This week and from now on, support, through your time and energy and donations, organizations that are working to advance black food sovereignty, and farmworker rights. 

TAKE ACTION—Three Things You Can Do Today

1. Make your local green spaces places where community and local ecology thrive. Get pesticides out of your local parks and playing fields by pushing for the adoption of organic land management policies. For information and strategies you can use, see Beyond Pesticides Tools for Change.
2. Stand up for farmworkers. Tell your congressional representative and senators that EPA must protect farmworkers from toxic pesticide exposure. 
3. Make a donation to The Black Institute. The Black Institute isn’t a think-tank, it’s an action-tank. Through a head, heart, and feet strategy, TBI injects new ideas for achieving racial equity and justice into the policy realm. The Black Institute is a leader in advancing organic land management legislation in New York City that bans toxic pesticides. Donate now.

Thank you!
—The Beyond Pesticides Team

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2020) As it navigates an exit from the European Union (EU) and its trade agreements, the UK is considering the establishment of its own Free Trade Agreements, including commodities treated with pesticides, with various partner countries. Toxic Trade, a new report from Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK) and others, reveals how such agreements between the UK and other countries — and the U.S., in particular — threaten to weaken existing protections from pesticides in the UK, which are stronger than those in most other countries. The report points to potential harms to UK residents, environment, and wildlife; it further suggests that the likelihood of the U.S. successfully imposing a weakening of UK protections is high. In November 2019, Beyond Pesticides covered the warnings from PAN UK and the Soil Association that the UK’s “Brexit” might result in greater pesticide use and/or exposure.

The UK, and other European countries, have taken a more-precautionary approach to the permitting of pesticide use than does the U.S., Australia, or India. The UK bans a long list of pesticides that threaten human health, pollinators, ecosystems, and natural resources; many of these same compounds continue to be used in these three other countries. Shockingly, paraquat — banned in more than 40 countries because of its extreme toxicity to humans and high fatality rate, but not in these three — is one of them. Likewise, fipronil and neonicotinoids, both insecticides that cause severe harm to pollinators, are banned in the UK but permitted in this trio of countries. The report also calls out the uses of the herbicides atrazine and diuron in the three nations, whereas the UK has banned them because of their harm to aquatic life and damage to water body ecosystems.

Toxic Trade is co-authored by PAN UK, Emily Lydgate, Ph.D., senior lecturer in environmental law, University of Sussex, and SUSTAIN, a UK nonprofit focused on food and farming. It captures concerns in the UK’s public health and environment sectors that in negotiations on Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), the U.S. will exert significant pressure on the UK to compromise its stronger pesticide regulations in order to secure agreements with the American government. The U.S. goal is to weaken such regulations so that it can export its more-contaminated food products to the UK. The report warns that this could result in both an increase in amounts of pesticide residues and increased toxicity of pesticides in food imported into the UK. But the impacts would go well beyond the residues in any U.S. foods that folks across the pond might consume: it would necessarily require more-lax pesticide standards for domestic UK food production.

The co-authors note, “Trade partners attempting to secure access to the UK market for their food exports have listed UK pesticide standards as a key sticking point and made it clear that weakening them is a priority.” One of the report co-authors, Dr. Lydgate, adds, “A clear and central objective of US negotiators is for the UK to lower its pesticide standards. The current picture in the UK of intense political pressure coupled with a lack of parliamentary and public scrutiny means the risk of this happening is very high.”

A comparison of a few rough metrics reveals some of the differences between U.S. and UK regulations. The UK has approved use of a total of 2,900 pesticide products; Australia has permitted 8,000, and the U.S., 9,000. Those products in the UK comprise 468 active ingredients; in Australia, that number is 486; in the U.S., 692. Of pesticides the authors label “highly hazardous,” the UK allows 73, whereas the U.S. allows 102, and Australia, 144. Finally, regarding organophosphates, which are highly toxic to humans: the UK permits 4; India, 16; the U.S. 26, and Australia, 33.

The reports asserts that UK acquiescence to such U.S. pressure would mean considerable risks to human and environmental health in the UK. Were the UK to relax standards to secure FTAs, the authors say, pesticides that have been banned in the UK could again appear in UK foods. Examples include:

• chlorpyrifos, banned by the EU because of its devastating neurological and developmental harms to children; its use is allowed in the U.S. and India;
• dimethoate, banned by the EU for its potential genotoxicity and mutagenicity; its use is permitted in the U.S. and Australia; and,
• iprodione, banned by the EU because of concerns about its links to cancer and its status as an endocrine disruptor; the compound is allowed in the U.S. and India.

Toxic Trade compares UK pesticide regulations with those in two priority partners, the U.S. and Australia, as well as those in India. Among its findings are: (1) UK limits on pesticide residues allowed in food are lower than those in most non-EU countries, and (2) the UK has been more inclined than most countries to ban a pesticide because of harms it causes. As examples of higher pesticide residue tolerances, compared with the UK’s, the report cites these:

• residue of the organophosphate insecticide malathion is permitted on U.S. apples at 400 times the level permitted in the UK;
• residue of the organosulphite propargite on U.S. grapes is allowed at 1,000 times the amount that UK regulations authorize; and
• compared to wheat grown in the UK, wheat grown in the U.S. is allowed to harbor 10 times the residue of the insecticide carbaryl, and Indian wheat, four times the amount.

All three of these pesticides are linked to serious health impacts, including (in the aggregate) reproductive, respiratory, and neurologic anomalies, and potential carcinogenicity. In addition, in understanding these comparisons, it is important to bear in mind that the amount of these pesticide residues the UK allows on these crops is not zero.

Recent You.gov polling, cited in the report, indicates that the UK public is strongly opposed to any compromise of pesticide regulations in order to appease U.S. negotiators and secure an FTA. More than 70% expressed concern about reduced standards and agreed that the “UK government must resist pressure in trade negotiations with the US to overturn bans on pesticides, even if this means the ‘best’ trade deal cannot be reached.” The authors advocate public resistance to any weakening of UK pesticide standards through trade deal negotiations, including: (1) maintaining current limits on allowed pesticide residue, (2) ensuring that foods containing residues of UK-banned pesticides cannot be imported, and (3) disallowing re-entry of any currently banned pesticides to the market. The authors also criticize the lack of opportunity for public or parliamentary scrutiny of these FTA negotiations or agreements, writing, “This makes it all too easy for the UK Government to trade away our hard-won protections behind closed doors. It’s therefore crucial that the public, journalists and MPs start calling attention to the significant risks posed to health and environment by toxic trade.”

Written to warn the UK public about the threats of these FTA negotiations to health and environment, and to rally pressure on the government not to surrender to U.S. (or other) pressures, the report also vividly underscores the terrible state of pesticide regulation in the U.S. The lack of precautionary ethic in U.S. statutes and regulations has led to relative corporate freedom to disburse — using farmers and consumers and industry as vectors — chemical pesticides across every corner of the country. Farms, parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, golf courses, homes and gardens, roadways, energy transmission corridors, and rivers, lakes, and even oceans — all are affected by the profligate use of pesticides. The integrity of natural resources and ecosystems, critical biodiversity, the welfare of pollinators and wildlife, and the health of the U.S. population are all being damaged by intensive chemical use and management. A quick look at the consequences for the domestic food supply is telling; a huge proportion of domestically grown fruits, vegetables, and grains contain significant pesticide residues, as Beyond Pesticides reported late in 2019.

Beyond Pesticides endorses a rapid transition to organic and regenerative systems of agriculture and land management, which would offer myriad benefits to human and environmental health. That endorsement of an “agroecological” approach was echoed in the UK in a report covered by Beyond Pesticides in 2019: “The RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) Food, Farming and Countryside Commission . . . has just released an important report: Our Future in the Land. As reported by The Guardian, ‘The true cost of cheap, unhealthy food is a spiralling public health crisis and environmental destruction.’ The commission’s report calls for radical transformation of the UK food and agricultural system, by 2030, to sustainable, agroecological farming, and establishes steps to launch the process.” The U.S., rather than pressuring the UK to diminish its more-protective standards, should look to its own house.

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

Sources: https://www.pan-uk.org/toxic-trade/ and https://issuu.com/pan-uk/docs/toxic_trade_report_2020?fr=sM2MwNTExOTMxNQ

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2020) Residential exposure to household pesticide products increases the risk of developing symptoms associated with depression, according to a study published in Environmental Research by researchers at Medical College of Georgia—Augusta University, School of Medicine—Jinan University, and Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), China. Research on pesticide-induced diseases commonly investigates pesticide exposure concerning the development of various physical illnesses, and previous studies show there are occupational risks of developing depression, especially in agriculture where pesticide use is rampant. However, there is a lack of information connecting pesticide exposure to the subsequent psychological (psychiatric) effects on the general population. Additionally, household pesticide exposure varies from occupational exposure via exposure frequency, duration, intensity, and type. This research highlights the significance of researching potential mental health effects resulting from pesticide exposure, especially as society tends to rank mental health risks second to physical health. The study’s scientists note, “Our results highlight the importance of the cautious use of household pesticides because the chronic effects of poisoning may contribute to an elevated risk of depression.” 

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), depression affects 322 million people globally, with the number of diagnosed patients increasing by 18.4% from 2005 to 2015. Although the etiology of depression—and many other psychiatric disorders—is often genetic, studies suggest that other etiological factors, like pesticide exposure, play a role in depression incidents. Poor mental health has a tangible influence on physical health (i.e., depression and cardiovascular disease); therefore, the combination of pesticide exposure and mental illness only worsens the adverse effects on human health. If household pesticides exacerbate psychiatric disorder symptoms, it is important to evaluate the effects of pesticide exposure on mental health, in addition to physical health. 

Researchers used data from 2005–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), statistically designed to represent the general U.S. population, to assess the association between pesticide exposure and mental illness. A total of 14,708 U.S. adult participants, 20 years or older, responded to questions regarding age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), recreational physical activity/exercise (RPA), education, income, and depressive symptoms associated with pesticide exposure. Depressive symptom measurements used Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), a screening instrument asking participants to respond one of four ways about the frequency of depressive episodes during the previous two weeks. Scientist identified the chemicals involved in pesticides exposure via urine metabolite analysis.  Study participants self-reported all other information.

Of all 14,708 participants, those with exposure to household pesticides have a higher chance of exhibiting depressive symptoms, compared to unexposed participants. The study observes a significant interaction between moderate-to-vigorous RPA and pesticide exposure on depressive symptoms. However, stratified analysis ascertains that participants with light RPA have a 50% greater risk of developing depressive symptoms upon household pesticide exposure. Upon investigating pesticide metabolites, researchers significantly associate the presence of o-phenyl phenol with a higher risk of depressive symptoms. 

For over two decades, research concerning pesticide exposure and psychiatric disorders, like depression, focused on occupational hazards, especially for agricultural farmworkers. Exposure to agricultural pesticides puts farmers at six times greater risk of exhibiting depressive symptoms, including chronic anxiety, irritability, restlessness, and sadness. Specifically, exposure to organochlorines and fumigants (gaseous pesticides) heighten an individual’s risk of depression by 90% and 80%, respectively. Organochlorines are a chemical of concern as it induces a myriad of health problems, including reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, cancer, and fetal defects. Though the U.S. bans the use of many organochlorines, these chemicals can still expose individuals to volatile concentrations as they are highly persistent in the environment. Fumigants are of a human health concern as many fumigants are gases that can cause acute toxicity upon inhalation and ingestion. Linear models reveal an association between lifelong pesticide poisoning episodes and the increased risk of developing mental disorders among tobacco farmers. Tobacco farmers using organophosphate pesticides have a higher prevalence of minor psychiatric disorders. Organophosphates are a family of insecticides derived from World War II nerve agents. They are cholinesterase inhibitors, meaning that they bind irreversibly to the active site of an essential enzyme for normal nerve impulse transmission, acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme.

Individuals suffering from occupational pesticide exposure face a disproportionate risk of developing depression. However, pesticide exposure from nearby agricultural fields remains a threat to residential (non-occupational) human health. Previous studies found that populations living near a farm are more likely to have high depressive symptoms. Similarly, a 2019 study found that teens and adolescents living in agricultural areas, where organophosphate exposure is prevalent, are at higher risk of depression. Uniquely, gender (female), physical health, and age (young adult) indicate likely of having depressive symptoms, with the most adverse effects on women, those in poor physical health, and children under 14. 

Depression symptoms are of concern among individuals, whether pesticide exposure is occupational and residential. Annually, only half of Americans with depression diagnosis seek treatment for symptoms. Untreated symptoms of depression can increase the risk of suicide, a severe sign of depression. Commonalities between occupational and household pesticide exposure are suicidal thoughts and pesticide’s provocation as a suicide agent. A study published in the WHO Bulletin found that people storing organophosphate pesticides in their homes are more likely to have suicidal thoughts as exposure rate is higher. The study found an association between suicidal thoughts and ease of household pesticides accessibility. Geographic areas with the most home storage of pesticides also had the highest levels of suicidal thoughts in their populations. WHO scientists recognize pesticide self-poisoning is one of the most significant global methods of suicide as increases in pesticide toxicity makes them potentially lethal substances. Robert Stewart, Ph.D., a researcher for the WHO Bulletin, stated that: “Organophosphate pesticides are widely used around the world. They are particularly lethal chemicals when taken in overdose and are a cause of many suicides worldwide.” With that in mind, researchers say it is vital to recognize how pesticide exposure and accessibility can influence mental illnesses. 

Understanding the mental health implications of conventional pesticide exposure can help identify the various physiological mechanisms attributing to psychiatric disorders. For instance, past research finds that organophosphates have a considerable association with depressive symptom development, in addition to disturbing normal nerve impulses. So, scientists can analyze both information to determine if the lack of normal nerve impulses contributes to non-pesticide-induced depression. Specifically, this research identifies o-phenyl phenol—a toxic phenol pesticide—as the main urinary constituent in the study. O-phenyl phenol is a likely carcinogen, endocrine disruptor, and highly toxic to aquatic organisms, including fish. The carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting properties of o-phenyl phenol likely contribute to the development of depressive symptoms as pesticides alter the way chemicals perform normal bodily functions.

Despite this study’s claim that moderate-to-vigorous exercise can mitigate pesticide-induced depressive symptoms, 25% of the global population is not active enough to avoid depressive symptoms. Nearly 80% of all U.S. adults and adolescents alike, do not meet the guidelines for moderate physical activity, with only half of all Americans regularly exercising. However, even vigorous exercise cannot fully protect an individual from the mental and physical hazards of chronic pesticide exposure. Thus, researchers point to the need for future research to include assessing pesticide thresholds to induce depressive symptoms. 

Mental health is just as—if not more–important than physical health and studies such as these, highlights the importance of knowing pesticide implications beyond physical ailments. Through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD), Beyond Pesticides tracks  the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure. For more information on the multiple harms, pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on sexual and reproductive dysfunction, endocrine disruption, cancer, and other diseases. Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Consumers’ choices encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table every day by purchasing organic. By buying and using organic products, you not only support an agricultural system that does not heavily rely on the widespread application of dangerous pesticides, put a residential system as well. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture. 

Lastly, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among adults (3rd for adolescence) in the U.S., with more than 34,000 individuals take their own life every year. Suicidal thoughts and behaviors are dangerous and harmful and therefore considered a psychiatric emergency. An individual experiencing these thoughts should seek immediate assistance from a health or mental health care provider. If you or someone you know is in an emergency, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255), or call 911 immediately.

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

Source(s): Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2020) The June 3 decision in a high-profile “dicamba case” — against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and for the plaintiffs, a coalition of conservation groups — was huge news in environmental advocacy, agriculture, and agrochemical circles. The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s 2018 conditional registration of three dicamba weed killer products for use on an estimated 60 million acres of DT (dicamba-tolerant through genetic modification/engineering) soybeans and cotton. There is, however, a related issue that accompanies this and many other pesticide cases. When EPA decides to cancel or otherwise proscribe use of a pesticide (usually as a result of its demonstrated toxicity and/or damage during litigation), the agency will often allow pesticide manufacturers to continue to sell off “existing stocks” of a pesticide, or growers and applicators to continue to use whatever stock they have or can procure. Beyond Pesticides has opposed, covered, and litigated against this practice. To greenlight predictable harm is a violation of any recognized moral code, never mind of the agency’s mission — “to protect human health and the environment.” According to Beyond Pesticides, EPA should never permit continued use of a dangerous pesticide once that compound’s registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has been canceled.

Dicamba is a particularly problematic herbicide, given its propensity to drift, the widespread damage it causes to non-target flora, and industry’s intensive marketing of various product iterations. Added to that list are its impacts on human health: carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, hepatic and renal damage, and developmental effects, among others. Additionally, it is toxic to birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms, which is especially relevant because it is found in groundwater, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

In recent years, growers have become more animated about damage to their crops from dicamba drift. Dicamba used to be used primarily as a pre-emergent treatment, but manufacturers have increasingly recommended “over the top” (OTT) applications — those made after plants are growing. (OTT applications of the three dicamba products are those to which the decision in the subject Ninth Circuit Court case applies.) In addition, as resistance to glyphosate herbicides—which were developed and marketed to work with genetically engineered (GE) seeds—grows, industry has promoted the use of dicamba plus glyphosate in attempt to knock down those resistant weeds. In 2015, for example, Monsanto began selling [with EPA approval] another iteration of its GE soybean seed, which is tolerant of both compounds. But this seed-plus-double-herbicide protocol has exacerbated the drift problem and resultant plant damage.

The coalition of organizations — the National Family Farm Coalition, Center For Food Safety, Center For Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America — brought this suit in 2018, after EPA had issued a second conditional registration of three dicamba products. Plaintiffs in the recent case sought the court’s review of the basis of the 2018 conditional registration, arguing that it violated both the Endangered Species Act and FIFRA (under which authority pesticides are registered). Judge William Fletcher, writing for the three-judge panel, wrote, “We hold that the EPA’s October 31, 2018, decision, and the conditional new-use registrations of XtendiMax, Engenia, and FeXapan for use on DT [dicamba tolerant] soybean and cotton that are premised on that decision, violate FIFRA. . . . We therefore vacate the EPA’s October 31, 2018, registration decision and the three registrations premised on that decision. . . . [W]e do not reach the question whether the registration decision also violates the Endangered Species Act.”

A few days after the Ninth Circuit decision, EPA issued its cancellation order, which “outlines limited and specific circumstances under which existing stocks of the three affected dicamba products can be used for a limited period of time.” The order identifies those circumstances as: “(1) Distribution or sale by any person is generally prohibited except for ensuring proper disposal or return to the registrant; and (2) Growers and commercial applicators may use existing stocks that were in their possession on June 3, 2020, the effective date of the Court decision. Such use must be consistent with the product’s previously approved label, and may not continue after July 31, 2020.” This allows continued use through this growing season.

As the Environmental Health Network notes, “In nearly all prior cases revoking federal registrations, the Environmental Protection Agency and courts have left enough wiggle room in orders to allow farmers to apply ‘soon to be banned’ pesticides in the current growing season, especially if products had already been purchased by farmers.”

This set of EPA proscriptions is more limiting than the agency often sets out in such instances. Some states have established more-stringent rules; Minnesota, for example, has set the clock on use of remaining stocks to expire on June 20, and Illinois and South Dakota moved to suspend all dicamba use and sale immediately. Other state agriculture departments have rushed to emphasize that sale, distribution, and use of all other dicamba products remains legal, absent a label cancellation by EPA.

Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman describes the recurrent “existing stocks” problem: “Cancellation of a pesticide registration has rarely been interpreted by EPA to mean that the stocks of the canceled pesticide already ‘in the pipeline’ are necessarily proscribed. The agency will often allow the sell-off of remaining stocks that are already in the supply chain, and/or continued use by growers and applicators. This can mean that farmers may already have planted the season’s crops and will use up whatever stocks of the pesticide — now canceled, and usually because of egregious toxicity and harm — they have or can get their hands on.” EPA estimates that there are approximately four million gallons of the three OTT dicamba products — Bayer’s XtendiMax, BASF’s Engenia, and Corteva Agriscience’s FeXapan — in the supply pipeline.

He cites examples of the issue (the first of which was, atypically, successfully resolved): “In the 1980s, Beyond Pesticides brought suit on this existing stocks issue, related to the termite insecticide chlordane, which had already been banned for agricultural uses. During the litigation, EPA negotiated a manufacturer withdrawal of the chemical (aka a “voluntary withdrawal”) from the market and allowed existing stocks to be used up, despite the extraordinarily high risks of use of the compound. We went to court on this and explained to the judge that the continued use of chlordane during the depletion of existing stocks would cause on the order of hundreds of additional cancer diagnoses per month, as well as contamination of countless numbers of homes.”

“During the litigation, EPA renegotiated the cancellation and instituted a product recall, with Velsicol Chemical Company (the manufacturer) compensating those who held stocks of the pesticide for their unused product. This is the way it should work, but usually does not. It is outrageous that, after the harm is established and it is known that people and communities will get hurt, EPA would allow such harm to continue. The agency did the same thing with Dursban (active ingredient: chlorpyrifos) when it negotiated a cancellation of its residential uses in 2000. EPA allowed all existing stocks to be sold for a complete year. Retailers then had a fire sale and sold off existing stocks for a solid year, knowing that the risk factors for health impacts on children was very high.”

Beyond Pesticides has called attention to the issue for years: malathion in 2000; chlorpyrifos in 2004; and diazinon in 2004, for example. Beyond Pesticides wrote on the diazinon existing stocks issue: “The EPA first announced the ‘voluntary’ cancellations of registration for diazinon by industry in December 2003. (When EPA does a risk assessment that clearly and undeniably shows elevated dangers due to certain uses, it may encourage the manufacturers to voluntarily cancel registration of the problem uses rather than have the EPA take a ban action. This way the agency might avoid the embarrassment of banning a chemical it previously accepted and registered, often decades before.) The agency has the power to disallow existing stocks to be used, which would raise the level of public alert rather than just make the pesticide essentially disappear from store shelves. By allowing a phase-out of existing stocks, the agency is allowing people to be continually exposed to a chemical that the agency knows is exceedingly dangerous. It further perpetuates public ignorance of the hazards of pesticides and the lack of information that exists prior to their release into the public domain.”

EPA uses other tactics to deal with cancellation of pesticide uses while treading lightly on industry interests. One is the “phaseout,” which gives months or years for sale and/or use to decline and reach zero. In 2000, Beyond Pesticides weighed in on this issue re: EPA’s risk assessments of malathion, diazinon, and chlorpyrifos. Another, as mentioned, is so-called “voluntary cancellation,” in which a company will withdraw a product from the market. Rather than use its regulatory authority to cancel a pesticide’s registration, EPA might engage in prolonged negotiations with industry, after which “manufacturers are enticed into voluntary cancellations when EPA finally threatens action or litigation looms, seeking to avoid a determination or finding by the agency on elevated risk factors that could increase the registrant’s (pesticide manufacturer’s) liability and reduce its export market.” The agency has maintained that adversarial proceedings are costly and time consuming, but many toxic pesticides have remained registered and on the market for years while EPA enacts glacially paced review processes.

The agrochemical industry is interested in one thing: profit. As explained, companies “negotiate” with EPA to get the most profitable arrangement when a pesticide use is at risk of cancellation. Yet another unsavory tactic is selling overseas what cannot be sold in the U.S.: when a pesticide is deregistered or banned in the U.S., chemical companies attempt to preserve profit on those compounds by selling into overseas markets, where they can wreak havoc on the environments and health of non-Americans. Predictably, even as the subject case was in process, industry brought to market yet another dicamba product, demonstrating its indifference to the harms of such compounds. The court’s decision and EPA order do not affect Syngenta’s new Tavium herbicide for use with DT crops because Tavium was not registered when the lawsuit was filed.

This kind of backdoor tactic underscores a systemic problem with pesticide registration and review. When the harms of a pesticide can be demonstrated, entities may file lawsuits against the manufacturer(s) to try to secure a decision that results in EPA’s cancellation of a pesticide’s registration. Given the thousands of harmful pesticide formulations, it approaches insanity to think that all such toxic compounds can be removed from market through such a laborious, prolonged, and expensive process for each formulation. It would make far greater sense, for example, to demonstrate the toxicity of dicamba, and secure a decision in a dicamba case that could apply to all formulations containing the compound.

Jay Feldman again explains, “Manufacturers always claim that all these products (with the same active ingredient) are different. This highlights how ‘surgically’ these cases are framed and adjudicated, rather than decided re: application to the broader issue of applicability to other chemical formulations of the same active ingredient. And this does not even touch the issue of formulations with an additional active ingredient, which currently would require going back to court again to try to secure a separate ruling that would apply more broadly. Courts are typically not very good at doing this, and prefer to make relatively narrow rulings.”

Environmental advocates are less than thrilled with EPA’s response to the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The Center for Food Safety, one of the plaintiffs, commented on the Ninth Circuit’s decision: “[This] disingenuous order from EPA flies in the face of the Court decision holding dicamba-based pesticides unlawful. It ignores the well-documented and overwhelming evidence of substantial drift harm to farmers from another disastrous spraying season. It ignores the risks to hundreds of endangered species. It ignores the comprehensive analysis by the Court of these harms. It raises the same arguments in favor of continued use that the Court has already rejected. The Trump administration is again showing it has no regard for the rule of law. All users that continue to not seek alternatives should be on notice that they are using a harmful, defective, and unlawful product. We will bring the EPA’s failure to abide by the Court’s order to the Court as expeditiously as possible.”

Some critics note that the EPA response is unclear on whether its ruling applies to the use of these herbicides on other, non-GE crops that may be listed on their labels. The Environmental Health Network (EHN) credits the Ninth Circuit court with “a remarkable grasp of the issue and the science,” but also says that the EPA order will, “allow ‘business as usual’ applications of most of the formulated dicamba over-the-top herbicides manufactured for sale and use in crop season 2020.” EHN predicts that EPA will likely, later in 2020, find a way to say “yes” to industry and growers by issuing new registrations for slightly modified OTT dicamba formulations.

EHN further reports that, “Many respected scientists have concluded, and stated publicly, that [dicamba] technology cannot be managed without accepting significant off-target movement and nearby crop and tree damage, regardless of how careful farmers and applicators are. In short, the problem is a design flaw in the technology itself, not adherence to strict and complex label rules.” In addition, it predicts that: farmers will spray more herbicides at higher rates, pay higher prices for herbicides, and struggle to deal with increasingly difficult weed control; the harmful environmental and public health impacts of herbicide use in the Midwest will become more obvious and harder for society to ignore or accept; and weed management practices that rely on proven cultural practices, rather than chemicals, will have to be adopted because there is no other way out of this toxic spiral. “In the interim, expect a wild ride that could leave a lot of collateral damage in its wake if the status quo persists.”

Last, in what appears to be consistent messaging on the Trump administration’s favoring of corporate interests, but odd given EPA’s purview, Administrator Andrew Wheeler seems to stray significantly from mission when he opines in the agency’s news release on the order: “At the height of the growing season, the Court’s decision has threatened the livelihood of our nation’s farmers and the global food supply.” The release continues the sentiment: “EPA’s order [to allow continued use] will mitigate some of the devastating economic consequences of the Court’s decision for growers, and particularly rural communities. . . . Dicamba is a valuable pest control tool that farmers nationwide planned to use during the 2020 growing season. Since the Court issued its opinion, the agency has been overwhelmed with letters and calls from farmers citing the devastation of this decision on the millions of acres of crops, millions of dollars already invested by farmers, and threat to America’s food supply.”

EPA ought, in the present dicamba case, to recognize and act on the Court’s findings that:

• dicamba’s “toxicity is not limited to weeds,” but extends to “broadleaf plants, bushes, and trees . . . . fruiting vegetables, fruit trees, grapes, beans, peas, potatoes, tobacco, flowers, . . . ornamental plants [and] . . . . many species of large trees, including oaks, elms, and maples”
• the agency “entirely failed to acknowledge a social cost that had already been experienced and was likely to increase [—] that OTT application of dicamba herbicides has torn apart the social fabric of many farming communities”
• EPA entirely failed to acknowledge an economic cost that is virtually certain to result from the conditional registrations of the dicamba herbicides for OTT application — that the likely anti-competitive effect of the registrations would impose a clear economic cost, but EPA at no point identified or took into account this cost

Said broadly, EPA should attend to its mission, which is to protect the environment and human health, rather than expend resources to find ways to allow ongoing harm from existing stocks of pesticides that are being cancelled. The public should expect more and better of the agency, which is charged with maintaining a critical public good. Join Beyond Pesticides and help hold EPA accountable.

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

Sources: https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2020/06/federal-court-halts-use-of-drift-prone-dicamba-on-millions-of-acres-of-ge-soy-and-cotton/ and https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/125–dicamba-opinion_35970.pdf

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2020) A dog owner in southern Florida is warning other owners about the safety of flea and tick medication after his dog suffered a seizure and lost mobility in her back legs. As reported by CBS WINK, owner Joe Brewster switched to the product PetArmor Plus for Dogs, manufactured by Sergeant’s Pet Care Products, Inc., just three days before his dog, Buddha, suffered a seizure. “They asked me if I changed flea and tick medication,” Mr. Brewster told WINK news. “And I thought for a minute, and I go, ‘Yeah, three days before.’”

Although the type of event experienced by Buddha was characterized by veterinarians and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as rare, the onset of neurological problems is a serious issue that could be indicative of future health impacts on pet owners. According to a recent study, dogs can act as sentinel species for chemical-induced human diseases.

Wendy Mandese, PhD, a veterinarian and professor at the University of Florida told reporters, “We may see an animal that has an issue one or two times a year.” However, EPA told WINK news that over the last decade, it received over 1,300 reports of pesticide incidents involving pets, and 67 involving humans after the use of PetArmor products. While these incidents may be spread throughout the entire country, and any one individual veterinarian may see a few per year, at a national level these numbers point to a problem with the underlying regulations that allow toxic flea and tick products onto market.

The active ingredients in PetArmor plus are fipronil and methoprene, both of which are commonly found in many pet flea and tick treatments. Methoprene is an insect growth regulator that can cause vomiting dialated pupils, behavioral changes, and breathing problems in dogs. Studies on laboratory animals found indications of delayed development from methoprene exposure. Past incident reports associated with fipronil treatments on dogs found exposure to result in skin irritation, lethargy, incoordination, dilated pupils, facial swelling and convulsions. In laboratory animals, the chemical causes aggressive behavior, kidney damage, and changes in thyroid functioning. Fipronil has a long residual time, and can remain on pets nearly two months after an application. Human exposure is associated with neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, skin irritation, eye damage, reproductive impacts and cancer. There is no available data on the hazards associated with combining methoprene, fipronil, and inert ingredients in a formulation.

Given the association between product ingredients and convulsions, Mr. Brewster told WINK that he believed the flea package should let pet owners know that a risk of seizure is possible. “This isn’t right. This is animal abuse, basically,” Mr. Brewster told reporters. “They shouldn’t be using this in flea and tick medication if it’s bad for pets.”

Although the risk of adverse effects is spread out throughout the country, a health scare with one’s pet is a frightening situation, and if provided a complete understanding of the hazards a product can cause, many pet owners are unlikely to place their pet in potential danger. This is especially true given the effectiveness of alternative approaches to flea and tick management.

Pets should be regularly checked for ticks using a flea/tick comb available at most pet stores. Best practice is to check a pet each time they have been outdoors, or at least twice a week. Areas behind the ears and between toes are often places that ticks will hide – so make sure to be thorough. Be careful not to break off any embedded ticks, and remove any found ticks in the same way described for humans.

If your pet has fleas, daily combing is necessary, with an intermittent dunk in soapy water to kill and remove fleas. You can speak with your veterinarian about receiving vitamin B-complex supplements, which can reduce the frequency of flea bites. Oftentimes, fleas vectors come not from within a house but outside on a lawn. An application of beneficial nematodes can kill fleas on a lawn naturally to prevent re-infestation and spread to other pet owners.

For more information about managing fleas and ticks without the use of hazardous chemicals that can harm your pets, see Beyond Pesticides Managesafe pages on tick and flea control.

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

Source: CBS WINK Southwest Florida

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2020)  On May 7, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) purporting to “promote American seafood competitiveness and economic growth,” while, in fact, permitting offshore aquaculture in federal waters with reduced environmental safeguards. Instead, we need stronger federal regulation in order to protect the environment and public health.

This EO adds to the Trump Administration’s shameful record of dismantling environmental protections, failing to enforce those that do exist, undermining science, and weighing agrochemical and other industry interests over those of the public and the environment. The EO will further erode regulations that have governed the operation of so-called “fish farms” and open enormous marine areas to exploitation by this industry.

Tell Congress to save our oceans.

U.S. aquaculture is a $1.5 billion industry, with almost 3,000 operations. Regulation of aquaculture is shared by a number of federal, state, and local agencies. Much of the regulation is at the state and local level because each state and locality may regulate permitting based on zoning, water use, waste discharge, wildlife management, processing, and other aspects of aquaculture operations. 

Trump’s EO reduces federal regulation by designating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as the lead agency in the U.S.’s exclusive economic zone, the ocean waters spanning from three to 200 miles of the U.S. coastline. Prior to this EO, such facilities were not permitted in this zone. The EO shortens timelines for federal decisions to 90 days for drafting of a permit, and two years for environmental review. Center for Food Safety lead counsel George Kimbrell said in a Seattle Times article, “NOAA [has] wanted to do this sort of industrial [aquaculture] permitting not just in the Gulf of Mexico but in the Pacific and along the Atlantic coast.” NOAA has also pursued rulemaking for the industry in waters off of Hawaii and other Pacific islands. 

The order cites the need for “removing outdated and unnecessarily burdensome regulations,” reducing “burdens on domestic fishing,” and increasing production. However, federal regulations are needed to address collapsing fisheries, rebuilding fish stocks, and guiding the industry in a more sustainable direction. Even without this order, oceans are rapidly losing biodiversity due to global climate change, pollution, overfishing, and by-catch. 

The environmental impacts of coastal and offshore aquaculture include the pollution from fish farm effluent, antibiotic and pesticide inputs and residues, impacts on local marine ecosystems, coastal habitat loss, and genetic and health risks to wild marine populations. Pesticides may contaminate the ocean through the use of insecticides to control sea lice in farmed salmon or from residues in farmed fish food pellets. In addition, the high-density environment of the fish pen increases the likelihood of disease, which can infect wild populations; nets and other gear cause injury or death to wild creatures who get entangled in them; and the waste from net pens can add significant sources of organic matter into coastal ecosystems, potentially altering the local food chain, depleting the water of oxygen, and generating toxic algal blooms. Furthermore, feed for farmed fish is dependent on wild-caught fish as an input.

Meanwhile, with global supply chains in disarray and so many restaurants closed, there is no way to process, store, or sell more product—an economic disruption that will not be remedied by increasing supply. 

The federal government should implement strong safeguards on the industry that avoid harmful impacts on wild marine fish stocks and other organisms, reduce water pollution, eliminate the use of pesticides in aquaculture, and prevent habitat destruction. Investment in ocean and coastal habitat restoration and improved, science-based monitoring and management of fisheries and aquaculture enterprises are also needed. 

Tell Congress to save our oceans.

Thank you!
The Beyond Pesticides Team

Letter to Congress

On May 7, President Trump issued an executive order (EO) purporting to “promote American seafood competitiveness and economic growth,” while, in fact, permitting offshore aquaculture in federal waters with reduced environmental safeguards. Instead, we need stronger federal regulation in order to protect the environment and public health.

This EO adds to the Trump administration’s shameful record of dismantling environmental protections, failing to enforce those that do exist, undermining science, and weighing agrochemical and other industry interests over those of the public and the environment. The EO will further erode regulations that have governed the operation of so-called “fish farms,” and open enormous marine areas to exploitation by this industry.

Oceans cover 71% of Earth’s surface and hold about 97% of the planet’s water. Phytoplankton provide 50% of Earth’s oxygen, and the ocean is a vast sink for carbon dioxide. Regardless of whether we eat fish and shellfish, we need our oceans to be healthy in order to survive. Even without this EO, our oceans are threatened. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO):

• By the year 2100, without significant changes, more than half of the world’s marine species may stand on the brink of extinction.
• Today, 60% of the world’s major marine ecosystems that underpin livelihoods have been degraded or are being used unsustainably.
• Increased atmospheric CO2, as it dissolves in the oceans, acidifies them and threatens plankton, the basis of oceanic food chains. Acidification can corrode coral reefs and the shells of mollusks.
• Commercial overexploitation of the world’s fish stocks is so severe that it has been estimated that up to 13 percent of global fisheries have ‘collapsed.’

In the face of these threats—and others—to the oceans, it is important that we not backslide any further. Instead of promoting further industrial exploitation and pollution of the oceans, we need regulation of aquaculture that:

• Prohibits the use of pesticides and antibiotics;
• Prohibits genetically engineered fish and shellfish;
• Prohibits the use of plastic in net pens and other structures;
• Prohibits overcrowding that leads to parasites and diseases in net pens; and
• Requires protection of the benthos (organisms living at the bottom of the water body) in shellfish operations.

In addition, more Marine Protected Areas are essential to conserve the biodiversity of the oceans and to maintain productivity, especially of fish stocks.

Please act to strengthen protections for our oceans.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2020) New research finds that western monarch milkweed habitat contains a “ubiquity of pesticides” that are likely contributing to the decline of the iconic species. The research, published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, provides a grim snapshot of a world awash in pesticides, and raises new questions about the U.S. regulatory process that continues to allow these toxic chemicals on to the market without adequate review and oversight.

“We expected to find some pesticides in these plants, but we were rather surprised by the depth and extent of the contamination,” said Matt Forister, PhD, a butterfly expert, biology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno and co-author of the paper in a press release. “From roadsides, from yards, from wildlife refuges, even from plants bought at stores—doesn’t matter from where—it’s all loaded with chemicals. We have previously suggested that pesticides are involved in the decline of low elevation butterflies in California, but the ubiquity and diversity of pesticides we found in these milkweeds was a surprise,” Dr. Forister said.

The researchers collected over 200 milkweed samples from nearly 20 different sites across the Central Valley of California, as well as from retailers that sell milkweed plants to customers. In addition to retail locations, samples were taken at agricultural sites, wildlife refuges, and urban areas. Researchers screened the milkweed samples for 262 different pesticide compounds.

The study documents 64 different pesticides across all samples, including 27 fungicides, 25 insecticides, 11 herbicides, and one pesticide adjuvant (substance mixed with pesticide to enhance performance). Every sample tested positive for at least one pesticide, with an average sample containing roughly nine different compounds in its tissue. Some samples contained as many as 25 different pesticides. Researchers note that, for most of the pesticides detected, there is little to no data on how they impact the health of monarch butterflies.

Of particular note is the insecticide chlorantraniliprole, which, in a study published earlier this year, was found to be toxic to monarchs after drifting from adjacent farmland. Chlorantraniliprole was found in 91% of all samples taken. Further, it exceeded the lethal dose necessary to kill 50% of exposed monarchs (LD50) in 58 of the 227 samples tested in the study.

“One might expect to see sad looking, droopy plants that are full of pesticides, but they are all big beautiful looking plants, with the pesticides hiding in plain sight,” said Dr. Forister.

A study published last year found 14 different agricultural pesticides on milkweed tested near farm fields in Indiana. But the ubiquity and range of pesticide contamination found in the present study presents even greater concerns. It is not an overstatement to say that western monarch populations have been experiencing catastrophic declines. Counts from early 2019 found the population dropped 86% between 2017 and 2018. Using statistical analysis of citizen science data, a 2017 study posited the extinction risk of monarch butterflies in western North America to be ~50-70% within 20 years, and ~65-85% within 50 years. As a point of comparison, in the 1980s, roughly 10 million western monarchs overwintered in coastal California. Today there are likely fewer than 300,000.

Although the extent of pesticide contamination in monarch habitat may seem daunting, it is, in fact, one of the most straightforward issues in the range of factors leading to monarch declines (including illegal logging, climate change, and habitat displacement). One important first step would be to place monarchs under federal protection. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last year agreed to announce a decision on the protection status for the monarch under the Endangered Species Act sometime this year. Congress can also take decisive action by passing the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, which would immediately remove the most dangerous pollinator-toxic pesticides, and establish an independent stakeholder board to review other chemicals for their potential to harm pollinator populations. There are also actions you can take at the local and state level; plant organic seeds and starts, and encourage your state’s Governor to do the same in public spaces.  For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to monarchs and what you can do to help them, see past Daily News articles and Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.

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

Source: Phys.org Press Release, Frontiers and Ecology and Evolution

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2020) Researchers at North Carolina State University (NC State) and Duke University found that dogs can potentially operate as a sentinel, or indicator, species for environmental contaminate exposure – and subsequent diseases – in humans using silicone monitoring devices (i.e., wristbands, collars, etc.), according to research published in Environmental Science & Technology. Although scientists commonly use silicone devices to gauge organic contaminant exposure levels in epidemiological studies, the identification of chronic human diseases from pollutants remains challenging. Anthropoid (human) diseases can take many years to develop, even after initial contaminant exposure. However, dogs can develop comparable anthropomorphic diseases from susceptibility to the same environmental contaminants, but at a much quicker pace. This research highlights the significance of researching disease identification methods, mutual amid multiple species, to mitigate challenges surrounding long disease latency periods. Matthew Breen, Ph.D., professor of comparative oncology genetics at NC State, asserts, “If we develop ways to correlate dog disease with their exposures over time, it may allow human-health professionals to mitigate these exposures for both species. This study reinforces the concept of One Health, demonstrating that in addition to being our closest animal companions, our dogs are truly a sentinel species for health.”

As the prevalence of environmental pollutants continues to rise annually, the disease implications associated with the contaminants may subject to regulatory standards or in many cases may not be fully evaluated. Humans and dogs share over 360 analogous diseases, including various cancers (i.e., testicular, breast cancer, etc.). However, human disease development can remain latent for years, despite environmental pollutant exposure. So, while dogs have a shorter disease latency period, the species can play a significant role as early warning species indicating disease in humans via the monitoring of environmental exposure. 

Although previous research details the effects of diseases from contaminant exposure, it lacks details identifying environmental contaminant absorption and relative exposure patterns that cause these diseases. However, scientists successfully use silicone to detect environmental contaminants. The silicone membrane mimics human and animal cell membrane absorption, thus acting as a good indicator of contamination absorption and relative exposure. A COSECHA study found that silicone wristbands quantify pesticide exposure, accurately identifying 72 different pesticides exposed to teenage girls, in the Salinas Valley region. The pesticides include many known endocrine disruptors (i.e., fipronil sulfide [fipronil degradate], DDE’ [DDT metabolite]). Using silicone monitoring devices, like wristbands, can provide an evaluation of average combined measures of exposure, over time (e.g., for several days). Additionally, contaminant measurements using silicone devices allow researchers to perform repeated observation (longitudinal) studies for long-term exposure, without extensive clinical tests.

Catherine Wise, Ph.D. candidate at NC State, states the value of silicone devices, noting: “What makes the silicone monitoring devices such a powerful tool for investigating exposures is that they are non-invasive, inexpensive and temperature-stable for transporting, and convenient to wear. […] The uptake of these chemicals through the membranes of human and animal cells is similar to the ability that silicone has to potentially absorb these chemicals.”

To gauge whether dogs are viable biological sentinel species for human disease, scientists used a silicone passive sampling procedure – a monitoring technique using an artificial or organic medium to accumulate environmental chemical pollutants over time – and urine analysis (urinalysis). Researchers enrolled 30 dogs, and their respective 30 owners, to wear silicone monitors for five consecutive days; humans sported wristbands, while the dogs wore silicone collar tags. During the analysis, researchers distributed a questionnaire surveying participants’ demographic data, lifestyle circumstances, shared home experience with their pet.  Additionally, researchers asked participants to document when they took off or put on wristbands and dog tags, as well as urine collection. Wristband and collar tag analysis measured chemical exposure to three classes of environmental toxins commonly found in human blood and urine samples: pesticides, flame retardants, and phthalates. Using Spearman’s rank-order, researchers evaluated the extent of correlation between chemical concentrations in wristbands and dog tags, and urinary metabolites, across and within the species. Assessment of statistical correlation between chemicals present in pets and their owners utilized multilinear regression models, developed in R studio.

Research models find significant correlations among chemical exposure levels for pets and owners, due to similar chemical concentrations in urine samples and silicone devices. An environmental contaminant present in both human and dog urinalysis is organophosphate ester, a chemical in flame-retardant. The most abundant phthalates on wristbands and dog tags are dioctyl terephthalate (DEHT) and di(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), respectively. Trans- and cis-permethrin are the most abundant pesticides present on wristbands and tags. Furthermore, these silicone devices detect the presence of both pesticides and phthalates 100% of the time.

Humans and dogs often occupy similar spaces, exposing both species to the same chemical contaminants, like pesticides. Pesticide exposure from environmental use (i.e., on gardens, turf, public field/property, etc.), or products containing pesticides (i.e., pet shampoos, disinfectants, bug sprays, etc.), is unavoidable—regardless of pesticide product labels warning clients to avoid direct contact with clothes or skin. Pet products containing pesticides are of concern as people encounter their pets daily. With the high degree of human contact with pets, through cuddling and hugs and kisses, those using pet products containing pesticides are at greater risk of high contaminant exposure. Numerous flea and tick prevention products (i.e., collars, topical treatments, sprays, dusts) include pesticides like tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP), propoxur, synthetic pyrethroids, and fipronil. A common trait among these pesticides is their toxicity, not just to dogs and non-target organisms, but to humans, as well.

Over 85 million people in the U.S. have pets, and many people use pet products containing pesticides to manage the implications of fleas, ticks, and other pests. However, pesticides present in pet products impose unfathomable health risks on humans, animals, and the environment, alike.  Recently, NRDC filed a petition to cancel TCVP use in flea collars, inciting exposure to humans causes neurological damage and cancer, and disproportionately impacts children due to their biological immaturity. Moreover, other pesticides, like synthetic pyrethroids, and their replacement counterpart fipronil, have similar carcinogenic, and endocrine disrupting effects. In pets, fipronil can cause aggression, kidney damage, and thyroid disruption. Pyrethroids, like permethrin, are of principal concern in multi-pet homes as cats are highly sensitive to these synthetic pyrethroids, which trigger seizures, tremors, muscle spasms, and even death. Although there are claims that pyrethroid toxicity is absent in dogs, a 2014 study finds that tremor-salivation syndrome appears in canines after exposure to two different classes of pyrethroids, as well as a neonicotinoid pesticide. In humans, synthetic pyrethroids prompt behavioral disorders, ADHD, delayed cognitive and motor development, and premature puberty in boys. A study, in the journal BMJ, finds that during the last trimester of pregnancy, synthetic pyrethroids, like permethrin and bifenthrin, increase the risk of an autism diagnosis by 87%.

Monitoring the effects of daily chemical exposures on dogs can act as a proxy for human health effects. Since dogs share a combination of gene functions and pathophysiological (biological processes associated with disease or injury) similarities to humans, canines can considerably improve research in biomedical studies when assessing cross-species health in the shared environment. This research is the first study to investigate environmental contaminant exposure among humans and dogs living together. Silicone wristband and dog tags detect similar levels of environmental contaminants across species, with trans- and cis-permethrin pesticides abundant in all silicone devices. Permethrins are one of the more stable pyrethroids and persist in environments for much longer. Studies show that an increase in permethrin concentration slows the degradation process, leading to bioaccumulation in soil, water – even organic tissue – over time, and pest resistance. 

Often, manufacturers and pesticides applicators use permethrin in conjunction with other pesticides (i.e., imidacloprid) and chemical synergists (i.e., piperonyl butoxide [PBO]), which enhance the toxicity of the active ingredients in pesticide formulations. The aggregate effect of these two pesticides is toxic. However, the addition of imidacloprid to permethrin in pet care products exacerbates the effects of neurotoxicants in humans, acute toxicity to aquatic organisms, and toxicity to pollinators (i.e., bees, butterflies, upland birds). PBO use is almost always in conjunction with pyrethroids, or other pesticides, and can heighten the toxic effects of pesticides, especially endocrine disruption, respiratory dysfunction, and liver/kidney damage. Using data from silicone dog tags can help assess relative pesticide exposure to determine potential health effects, especially for highly latent diseases that appear much soon in dogs. 

We must have a full knowledge of chemicals we are commonly exposed to in our environment, especially as agencies fail to accurately assess the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases of these environmental contaminants. Harms ultimately associated with contaminant exposure should end through policy reform and the adoption of practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use, especially in pet care products. With far too many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, reducing pesticides in pet products is a crucial aspect of safeguarding public health, particularly organisms vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a great resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated rates of diabetes as well as other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides. Additionally, learn more about how to protect your pet from pesticides, and the least-toxic controls for flea and tick infestation. See also Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe pages on flea and tick management.

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

Source(s): Environmental Science & Technology, Laboratory Equipment

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2020) Use of the weed killer dicamba on genetically engineered (GE) cotton and soybeans is now prohibited after a federal court ruling against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week. A coalition of conservation groups filed suit in 2018 after EPA renewed a conditional registration for dicamba’s ‘over the top’ (OTT) use on GE cotton and soy developed to tolerate repeated sprayings of the herbicide. “For the thousands of farmers whose fields were damaged or destroyed by dicamba drift despite our warnings, the National Family Farm Coalition is pleased with today’s ruling,” said National Family Farm Coalition president Jim Goodman in a press release.

First registered in the late 1960s, dicamba has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, birth defects, and kidney and liver damage. It is also toxic to birds, fish and other aquatic organisms, and known to leach into waterways after an application. It is a notoriously drift-prone herbicide. Studies and court filings show dicamba able to drift well over a mile off-site after an application.

Bayer’s Monsanto thought they could solve this problem. The “Roundup Ready” GE agricultural model the company developed, with crops engineered to tolerate recurrent applications of their flagship glyphosate weedkiller, was in trouble. Repeated glyphosate spraying on the same plots put natural selection into overdrive and fueled rapid and widespread weed resistance.

Rather than move to an alternative model, Bayer’s Monsanto doubled down and determined that the solution to weed resistance was to bring more herbicides into the mix. After all, GE agriculture allows chemical companies to increase profits by vertically integrating seed and chemical divisions; glyphosate’s failure is a business opportunity for the industry. The company’s new line of seeds would see dicamba use in agriculture explode from roughly one million pounds to nearly 10 million per year.

There were problems from the start. Bayer’s Monsanto had developed new dicamba-tolerant seeds and received approval to sell them from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2015. But EPA was not as fast to register the company’s patented “vapor grip” formulation of dicamba and glyphosate (Xtendimax), intended to be sprayed on its GE seeds. Nonetheless, Bayer’s Monsanto urged farmers to plant its seed because it claimed they would increase yields. The results of this were predictable: farmers began to use older, unapproved dicamba formulations on their new GE seeds, and reports of damage began to spring up throughout the US.

Non-soybean farmers began taking action. Bader Farms, the largest peach farm in Missouri, filed suit against Bayer’s Monsanto seeking compensation for damage and defoliation of its trees after illegal dicamba use. The dicamba scandal pitted farmer against farmer, tearing apart many agricultural communities. As reported by NPR, one Arkansas farmer was killed in a dispute with his neighbor that involved use of dicamba herbicides. That state became one of the first to consider regulatory action, with the Arkansas Plant Board voting 12-0 to move forward on measures to restrict agricultural use of dicamba and stop illegal spraying.

By the end of 2016, EPA had approved the company’s new “low volatility” herbicide formulation under a two year conditional registration. The label required a range of restrictions intended to minimize drift. However, by the end of 2017, according to court records and reporting from Reuters, state agriculture departments were fielding over 2,600 incident reports and scientists estimated over 3.6 million acres of non-GE soybean crops had been damaged by dicamba drift – likely an underestimate according to EPA’s own staff.

Despite accumulating data to the contrary, Bayer’s Monsanto continued to blame crop damage on farmers using older dicamba formulations. Conservation groups (National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America) filed their first lawsuit against EPA in early 2017, and by the end of the year Arkansas and Missouri banned the sale and use of OTT dicamba, with Arkansas’ decision coming on the heels of a public advocacy campaign run by Beyond Pesticides. In October 2017, EPA announced, alongside Bayer’s Monsanto and other chemical companies, further label restrictions on OTT dicamba use. “We’re very excited about it,” said Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy at the time. “It directly addresses what we found to be the causes of the off-target movement in 2017, and we think it sets the stage for all growers and applicators to have a positive experience in 2018.”

With the bad press rampant, Bayer’s Monsanto made plans to cover more than half the cost of its Xtendimax dicamba herbicide as an incentive to get farmers to plant its GE seeds. By the beginning of 2018, Arkansas had announced an official ban on dicamba use during the growing season (April- October), the toughest restrictions from any state to date. The company sued, but quickly lost a court battle, as the judge cited recent precedent holding that the state cannot be made a defendant in court.

The new label language did little to abate the damage the herbicide was causing, and another lawsuit was filed in 2018 by a Kansas farmer alleging damage to his row crops. In mid-August an investigative report found indications as to why new labels were insufficient: EPA let Bayer’s Monsanto write the new rules themselves.  

In late 2018, prior to the expiration of its conditional registration, EPA announced it would renew registration of dicamba products conditionally for another two years, alongside yet more label changes intended to address “potential concerns.” As a result, a federal court ruled that conservation groups’ 2016 lawsuit was moot, but the groups quickly repetitioned the court in January 2019.

One key aspect of the 2018 label changes was the implementation of a buffer zone of 57 ft. An investigative report from the Arkansas Democrat and Chronical (ADC) found that number to be far smaller than what scientists and EPA staff had recommended. Emails retrieved by ADC found that Bayer’s Monsanto worked closely with University of Arkansas weed science Professor Jason Norsworthy, PhD, on a field study to assess dicamba drift from its Xtendimax product. The collaboration was copacetic until results of the study showed that a 443 ft buffer would be required to avert adverse impacts. After disputes with the company, EPA’s scientific staff agreed. However, even in the face of earlier press coverage on how the agency let Bayer’s Monsanto write its own rules, it appears that political staff and then-Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler overruled the science again in favor of the chemical industry’s economic benefit.

Subsequent independent studies have found that the combination of glyphosate with dicamba is likely to increase the probability that dicamba will drift.  “…[O]ur data shows the addition of glyphosate to a dicamba spray solution increased dicamba detection in the atmosphere which would point to increased volatilization,” said Tom Mueller, PhD, a professor in the University of Tennessee Department of Plant Sciences. Synergy between dicamba and glyphosate had already been shown to damage the DNA of of toads.

Drift and environmental damage continued throughout 2019, with July seeing reports of soybean field research plots damaged in several states, including Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Arkansas, making it near impossible to carry out public research on non-GE crop varieties. Not only did drift harm public research, it eroded the market for non-GE soybeans, as growers saw GE dicamba seeds as their only way to avoid dicamba damage to their farm.

A report in late 2019 by Arkansas Audubon found widespread impacts to the habitat of birds and other wildlife. The organization wrote that it “predicts that in a landscape full of GMO crops [genetically modified organisms] (on which dicamba is typically used), the atmospheric loading of volatile dicamba could be enough to cause landscape scale damage to our state natural areas, wildlife management areas, national wildlife refuges, family farms, and the wildlife they harbor.”

In 2020, the tide finally began to turn away from chemical industry damage and destruction, and toward compensation and comeuppance. Missouri’s Bader Farms was awarded $265 million in compensation from Bayer’s Monsanto and BASF (another maker of a GE dicamba-based herbicide) for the damage caused to their peach farm. Critically, the jury determined that the joint venture between the two companies amounted to a conspiracy to create an “ecological disaster” in the name of profit.

The written court ruling by the Ninth Circuit released in early June clearly spells out the violations of federal pesticide law (Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act) by EPA in re-approving OTT dicamba under another conditional registration. The court ruling was made on the basis that “EPA substantially understated the risks it acknowledged and failed entirely to acknowledge other risks.”

Among the violations cited by the court were EPA’s understatement of the amount of dicamba tolerant seed planted, whether formal complaints were accurately reported, and it’s complete refusal to estimate actual damage. Instead of estimating damage in real numbers, the court chastised the agency for referring to dicamba damage as “potential” or “alleged,” an approach that lines up with the gaslighting the chemical industry perpetrated on affected farmers.

The judge also took EPA to task in three areas rarely considered under FIFRA. First, EPA’s failure to acknowledge that the iterative tightening of dicamba’s label language over the years effectively made it “difficult if not impossible to follow for even conscientious users.” Second, that EPA failed to consider the “anti-competitive economic effects” of GE dicamba on the non-GE cotton and soybean markets. And lastly, that the agency failed to consider how “OTT dicamba use would tear the social fabric of farming communities.” These critical components provide important precedent for future lawsuits challenging egregious abuses under federal pesticide law.

“This is a massive victory that will protect people and wildlife from uses of a highly toxic pesticide that never should’ve been approved by the EPA,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program. “The fact that the Trump EPA approved these uses of dicamba despite its well-documented record of damaging millions of acres of farmland, tree groves and gardens highlights how tightly the pesticide industry controls EPA’s pesticide-approval process. But this ruling is a powerful rejection of their lawlessness.”

As the court acknowledged, vacating all OTT dicamba registrations (including those by Bayer’s Monsanto, BASF, and Corteva [DowDupont]) would result in difficulties to some growers (the court noted it was not growers’ fault), but was compelled to do so as a result of “the absence of substantial evidence to support the EPA’s decision.”

While celebrating this victory and the new legal approaches it may provide conservation groups, it is important to acknowledge that this win is one that has only stopped damage. It has not created new more sustainable systems, but tamped down on an approach that has gone on for a long time. Dicamba’s failure is indicative not only the failure of GE agriculture, but the failure of public agencies to work in the public’s interest. Make no mistake, it is expected that EPA and the chemical industry will double down again, as it always does. In fact, there are already reports that EPA plans to allow farmers to use existing stocks of GE dicamba products.

Farmers and consumers can work together to move agricultural economies away from practices that line the pockets of executives while poisoning food and the surrounding environment. The longest running field trial in the country found that organic practices get higher returns than chemical- intensive agriculture. Organic agriculture is a boon for local economies, and a critical way to promote economic security, health equity, and climate resilience. Help create the sustainable agricultural industry we all deserve by engaging with and holding public officials accountable, and making food choices that protect your health and the environment.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety Press Release, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court Ruling

Photo: Dicamba drift damage on soybeans – K-State Research and Extension

(Beyond Pesticides, June 9, 2020) EPA has received applications from the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia for the “emergency” use of the bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticide dinotefuran to control brown marmorated stinkbugs in pome and stone fruits. These three states (and others) have received emergency exemptions for this use for the nine previous years and it must not be allowed for a tenth year. Rather than skirt the regulatory process of review, this use pattern must be subject to EPA registration review in combination with all other neonicotinoid uses.

Sign the Petition to EPA and Send a Letter to Your Congressional Representative and Senators: EPA Must Deny Routine “Emergency” Exemptions

As a neocotinoid insecticide, dinotefuran presents an alarming hazard to bees and other pollinators. Like other neonicotinoids, it is systemic and can indiscriminately poison any insects feeding on nectar, pollen, or exudates. It is also highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and soil organisms, as well as being highly persistent. In addition to the serious ecological impacts, dinotefuran is toxic to the immune system. This is, of course, an effect that should avoided during the coronavirus pandemic—when the immune system is under attack.

Section 18 of the federal pesticide law (FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) is designed to allow the use of an unregistered pesticide in emergency situations when there is not time to go through the registration process. Although the Section 18 regulations make reference to alternative practices, there is an underlying assumption that “pests” must be controlled with pesticides, so the lack of a registered pesticide for a given purpose is considered to be an “emergency.” The continual, repeated allowance of emergency pesticide uses disincentivizes the transition to safer and sustainable practices and products—as is found in organic management systems.

With the growth of the organic sector, that assumption is increasingly shown to be false. Although there are a few registered pesticides allowed in organic production, pests are mostly controlled by management of the agroecosystem. In fact, an organic systems plan must not allow the use of synthetic pesticides unless the use of management techniques—including crop rotation, crop nutrient management, sanitation, “selection of plant species and varieties with regard to suitability to site-specific conditions and resistance to prevalent pests, weeds, and diseases,” management of predators and parasites, and use of lures, traps, and repellents—are shown to be insufficient. In addition, the synthetic chemicals they use must meet stringent requirements prohibiting harm to human health and the environment. Organic producers can now grow anything that is grown by chemical-intensive methods, so it is reasonable to apply those same requirements to those applicants seeking an emergency exemption.

In 2006, EPA promulgated regulations making it easier to issue repeat emergency exemptions, despite the fact that the definition of an emergency condition requires an “urgent, non-routine situation.” In the case of dinotefuran, EPA has approved 125 emergency exemptions in eight states from 2011 through 2019 to kill brown marmolated stinkbugs in pome and stone fruits. The emergency exemptions were approved for all nine years in five states, eight years in two states, and four years in one state.

EPA must stop approving emergency exemptions in routine cases. In particular, EPA must not approve these repeat exemptions for the bee-toxic dinotefuran and must instead comply with the law, while supporting farmers with information on alternative practices and materials. Emergency exemptions are not subject to the determination that the pesticide does not pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, as is required by a full registration. After nine years of use in eight states, EPA should have enough data to determine whether to grant a full registration.

If EPA decides to grant dinotefuran a full registration for this use, it must include label restrictions that will protect bees, other pollinators, and aquatic invertebrates. It must require monitoring to ensure that the label restrictions are working.

Sign the Petition to EPA and Send a Letter to Your Congressional Representative and Senators: EPA Must Deny Routine “Emergency” Exemptions

Please sign the petition by June 10.

It will be delivered to EPA before the end of the comment period on June 11. A copy will be delivered to your congressional Representative and Senators.

Please also consider adding to your impact by submitting your own comments to Regulations.gov.

Thank you,
The Beyond Pesticides Team

PETITION TO EPA:

To EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0264:

Beyond Pesticides and the undersigned oppose granting emergency exemptions for dinotefuran to control brown marmorated stinkbugs in pome and stone fruits.

EPA’s allowance of an emergency pesticide application of a pesticide every year for nine years is not justifiable and it must not be allowed for a tenth year. EPA has received applications from the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia for the “emergency” use of the bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticide dinotefuran to control brown marmorated stinkbugs in pome and stone fruits. The three states (along with others) have received emergency exemptions for this use for the nine previous years. Rather than skirt the regulatory process of review, this use pattern must be subject to EPA registration review in combination with all other neonicotinoid uses.

Dinotefuran, as a neonicotinoid insecticide,  presents an alarming hazard to bees and other pollinators. Like other neonicotinoids, it is systemic and can indiscriminately poison any insects feeding on nectar, pollen, or exudates. It is also highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and soil organisms, as well as being highly persistent. In addition to the serious ecological impacts, dinotefuran is toxic to the immune system. This is, of course, an effect that should avoided during the coronavirus pandemic—when the immune system is under attack.

Section 18 of the federal pesticide law (FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) is designed to allow the use of an unregistered pesticide in emergency situations when there is not time to go through the registration process. Although the Section 18 regulations make reference to alternative practices, there is an underlying assumption that “pests” must be controlled with pesticides, so the lack of a registered pesticide for a given purpose is considered to be an “emergency.” The continual, repeated allowance of emergency pesticide uses disincentivizes the transition to safer and sustainable practices and products—as is found in organic management systems.

With the growth of the organic sector, that assumption is increasingly shown to be false. Although there are a few registered pesticides allowed in organic production, pests are mostly controlled by management of the agroecosystem. In fact, an organic system plan must not allow the use of synthetic pesticides unless the use of management techniques—including crop rotation, crop nutrient management, sanitation, “selection of plant species and varieties with regard to suitability to site-specific conditions and resistance to prevalent pests, weeds, and diseases,” management of predators and parasites, and use of lures, traps, and repellents—are shown to be insufficient. In addition, the synthetic chemicals they use must meet stringent requirements prohibiting harm to human health and the environment. Organic producers can now grow anything that is grown by chemical-intensive methods, so it is reasonable to apply those same requirements to those applicants seeking an emergency exemption.

In 2006, EPA promulgated regulations making it easier to issue repeat emergency exemptions, despite the fact that the definition of an emergency condition requires an “urgent, non-routine situation.” In the case of dinotefuran, EPA has approved 125 emergency exemptions in eight states from 2011 through 2019 to kill brown marmolated stinkbugs in pome and stone fruits. The emergency exemptions were approved for all nine years in five states, eight years in two states, and four years in one state.

EPA must stop approving emergency exemptions in routine cases. In particular, EPA must not approve these repeat exemptions for the bee-toxic dinotefuran and must instead comply with the law, while supporting farmers with information on alternative practices and materials. Emergency exemptions are not subject to the determination that the pesticide does not pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, as is required by a full registration. After nine years of use in eight states, EPA should have enough data to determine whether to grant a full registration.

If EPA decides to grant dinotefuran a full registration for this use, it must include label restrictions that will protect bees, other pollinators, and aquatic invertebrates. It must require monitoring to ensure that the label restrictions are working.

Thank you.

Letter to Congress

Please tell EPA not to grant emergency exemptions for the bee-toxic insecticide dinotefuran to control brown marmorated stinkbugs in pome and stone fruits.

EPA’s allowance of an emergency pesticide application of a pesticide every year for nine years is not justifiable and it must not be allowed for a tenth year. EPA has received applications from the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia for the “emergency” use of the bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticide dinotefuran to control brown marmorated stinkbugs in pome and stone fruits. The three states (along with others) have received emergency exemptions for this use for the nine previous years. Rather than skirt the regulatory process of review, this use pattern must be subject to EPA registration review in combination with all other neonicotinoid uses.

Dinotefuran, as a neonicotinoid insecticide, presents an alarming hazard to bees and other pollinators. Like other neonicotinoids, it is systemic and can indiscriminately poison any insects feeding on nectar, pollen, or exudates. It is also highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates and soil organisms, as well as being highly persistent. In addition to the serious ecological impacts, dinotefuran is toxic to the immune system. This is, of course, an effect that should avoided during the coronavirus pandemic—when the immune system is under attack.

Section 18 of the federal pesticide law (FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) is designed to allow the use of an unregistered pesticide in emergency situations when there is not time to go through the registration process. Although the Section 18 regulations make reference to alternative practices, there is an underlying assumption that “pests” must be controlled with pesticides, so the lack of a registered pesticide for a given purpose is considered to be an “emergency.” The continual, repeated allowance of emergency pesticide uses disincentivizes the transition to safer and sustainable practices and products—as is found in organic management systems.

With the growth of the organic sector, that assumption is increasingly shown to be false. Although there are a few registered pesticides allowed in organic production, pests are mostly controlled by management of the agroecosystem. Organic producers can now grow anything that is grown by chemical-intensive methods, so it is reasonable to apply those same requirements to those applicants seeking an emergency exemption.

EPA must stop approving emergency exemptions in routine cases. In particular, EPA must not approve these repeat exemptions for the bee-toxic dinotefuran and must instead comply with the law, while supporting farmers with information on alternative practices and materials.. Emergency exemptions are not subject to the determination that the pesticide does not pose unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, as is required by a full registration. After nine years of use in eight states, EPA should have enough data to determine whether to grant a full registration.

If EPA decides to grant dinotefuran a full registration for this use, it must include label restrictions that will protect bees, other pollinators, and aquatic invertebrates. It must require monitoring to ensure that the label restrictions are working.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2020) Brazil is home to more than 300 native bee species — many of them stingless — that help pollinate the nation’s valuable agricultural crops and provide other important environmental services. Yet, chemical-intensive agriculture’s intensive pesticide use and devotion to monocropping are a serious threat to these bees, Mongabay reports. Beyond Pesticides maintains that elimination of such pesticides is key to protecting critical pollinators, ensuring a nontoxic food supply, supporting ecosystems and biodiversity, and ensuring safe working conditions for agricultural workers and safety for rural residents. Organic, regenerative agricultural practices, which often avoid monocropping, achieve all of these important goals. Advocates maintain that a transition to such practices is imperative in ensuring a far less toxic future for humans, other residents of Planet Earth, and Nature itself.

The Brazilian Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services estimates the financial value of pollinators in Brazil, which include bees, moths, bats, butterflies, wasps, beetles, and other organisms, at roughly $8 billion annually. Most honey production in Brazil (and globally) comes from one species, Apis mellifera — a hybrid of European and African species that arrived in the Americas in the early 17^th century. A. mellifera is still the dominant species used in managed bee businesses that are rented for agricultural pollination, but native beekeeping is an important, if minority, contributor to pollination, especially of native plants.

Brazil’s native bees do produce honey, which has become treasured by high-end chefs. Native beekeeping is a growing enterprise and the source of other high-value products, such as propolis, bee pollen, beeswax, and royal jelly. In addition, research by Raoni da Silva Duarte, PhD, of the University of São Paulo, indicates that some native bee species’ honeys have antimicrobial effects that may prove useful in fighting pathogens that cause human diseases — suggesting potential medicinal utility.

Native bees provide pollination function for agricultural and non-agricultural plants; some plants can be pollinated only by Brazil’s stingless bees. Generosa Sousa Ribeiro, of the Melipona Beekeeping Department at the State University of Southwest Bahia, says, “Several plants need native species. They are chiefly responsible for pollinating native vegetation, providing cross-fertilization, which guarantees variability in plant species.” Stingless bee colonies have proven especially useful to coffee, rapeseed, cucumber, passion fruit, apple, strawberry, and orange production. Stingless bees also provide a distinctive service: buzz pollination. Mongabay reports, “When they land on flowers, many species, whether social or solitary, can vibrate by contracting their thoracic muscles, thus releasing pollen from the flowers and benefiting crops such as tomatoes and eggplants.”

Jerônimo Villas-Bôas, author of a manual on native, stingless beekeeping in Brazil, comments, “Their appreciation is on the rise. Places that maintained the culture of native beekeeping can now make this an alternative for income generation.” Native stingless bees are increasingly recognized as important “good actors” for their provision of a variety of services for the environment. The expansion of native beekeeping in Brazil is helping to keep forests intact, as honey farmers tend to preserve the environment and restore areas used in their activity. This protects both ecosystems and biodiversity. Mr. Villas-Bôas notes, “Beekeepers seek areas with preserved vegetation,” Mr. Villas-Bôas says. “Stingless beekeeping enables us to conserve the species involved and, indirectly, other animals in the ecosystem such as birds and mammals.”

However, chemical-intensive agriculture’s use of monocropping and toxic pesticides threatens Brazil’s native bees, having already reduced some populations. Monocropping — hundreds or thousands or millions of the same plant planted together — is not a thing found in nature. Robust biodiversity is a hallmark of healthy ecosystems; monocropping gives rise to pest problems because it eliminates the normal, balanced surround of a multitude of other interactive organisms — including those that would predate on pests. The practice thus invites use of pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers, which lead to degraded soil health.

In 2019, Beyond Pesticides set out many of the downsides of monocropping — despite its perceived advantages in terms of ease and economy for growers:

• It robs local ecosystems of natural systems of checks and balances, making monocrops more vulnerable to pests and diseases
• it reduces available nutrients in soil, thereby inviting addition of synthetic, usually fossil fuel–based fertilizers and other inputs
• it degrades soils so that they retain moisture far less well and cause increased runoff of chemical inputs, potentially contributing to algal blooms and anaerobic “dead zones” in nearby water bodies
• it increases topsoil erosion
• it leads to plants’ increased development of resistance to pesticides, fueling the cycle of resistance, creation of new chemical treatments, which then generate more resistance, etc.

Mr. Villas-Bôas says of monocropping, “Our food production system is the main reason why bees are disappearing. Plant suppression affects [native bees’] natural habitat. In addition, uniform landscapes do not provide the diverse diet that insects need. To make matters worse, there is abusive use of pesticides.” He adds, “The populations [of stingless species] are much smaller than those of A. mellifera, which makes it difficult to reorganize these bees after continued spraying. In 2017, we collected samples in areas of mass spraying, and we found more than 10 pesticides that were lethal for native bees.” Indeed, between December 2018 and March 2019, Brazilian beekeepers lost more than 500 million bees. Mongabay reports that some studies show that native stingless bees are even more vulnerable to pesticides than is A. mellifera.

Most of the country’s farmers use pesticides heavily, and the government is all for it. Beyond Pesticides covered the state of pesticides in Brazil in 2019, which was a terrible year for human and environmental health in Brazil. Beyond the massive fires in the Amazon rainforest, caused in part by land clearing for ever-more conventional farming, the health surveillance agency, Anvisa, approved new rules that established risk of death as the sole criterion for determination that a pesticide is toxic. Also in that year, the Ministry of Agriculture approved a whopping 262 pesticides — in addition to those already in use. In 1989, the nation had established one of the world’s toughest pesticide laws; it included utilizing the precautionary principle in evaluation and registration standards. The current state of affairs is anything but precautionary.

The proliferation of large-scale, monocrop farming has directly increased use of pesticides, and enforcement of existing-though-inadequate regulations has not kept up. In addition, the administration of President Jair Bolsonaro has been particularly uninterested in enforcement of pesticide laws, and receptive to the plaints of a powerful agribusiness lobby. Given that he ran on a platform touting protected lands as an obstacle to economic growth, and committed to removing barriers to commercial exploitation, environmentalists do not expect, under this administration, that Brazil will adequately protect the country’s natural resources.

The importance of native pollinators, such as Brazil’s stingless bees, is often under-recognized. Ecosystem integrity is both a requirement for them to thrive and exactly what is being degraded through conventional farming practices: use of toxic pesticides and monocropping (among others). Organic, regenerative agriculture contributes to the health and biodiversity of local ecosystems, the quality and safety of food that’s produced, and the health of the pollinators that make more than one-third of our food supply possible. Learn more at Beyond Pesticides’ website coverage of these vital, nontoxic, organic systems.

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

Source: https://news.mongabay.com/2020/06/brazils-native-bees-are-vital-for-agriculture-but-are-being-killed-by-it/

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2020) Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Massachusetts is wrestling with solutions for mosquito-borne illnesses such as Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) and West Nile Virus (WNV). A coalition consisting of national, state and local nonprofits, with the assistance of 75 legislators, won major amendments to emergency legislation sponsored by Governor Charles Baker, but the coalition seeks further refinements.

As originally introduced, Gov. Baker’s bill (H.4650 – see original legislation and amended version) would have given state agencies overly broad authority to eradicate mosquitoes through unlimited pesticide applications, without local input or notification to communities and residents prior to aerial spraying.  It would have suspended all environmental safeguards whenever state officials determine that an elevated risk of arbovirus “may exist” in the future.  In response to input from 75 legislators, the Joint Committee on Public Health made significant improvements to the bill, including–

• Giving property owners 48-hour notification before a spray event;
• Providing public notice as to what chemical agents will be sprayed; and
• Sunset emergency powers within two years, and authorization of a comprehensive stakeholder-driven evaluation of how the Commonwealth deals with mosquito control.

“We applaud lawmakers for significantly improving accountability and transparency, but more work is needed,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at the national non-profit Beyond Pesticides. “During the coronavirus pandemic, it’s critical we work to avoid pesticide use that can harm immune and respiratory systems, and place focus on safer, alternative means of managing mosquitoes.”

“Organic farmers and gardeners respect and rely upon a robust diversity of insects to pollinate our crops and keep pests in check,” remarked Marty Dagoberto, Policy Director of the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Massachusetts (NOFA/Mass). “We hope to work with legislators and regulators to help fashion an ecological approach to mosquito-disease management which limits the use of pesticides,” he added.

A key issue is that there have not been adequate scientific analyses to understand why and how these viruses spread in particular geographic areas. Nor do we understand the full impact of spraying on non-target insects, like pollinators, and important aquatic predators, or the efficacy of spraying on reducing disease transmission.

The coalition is still pressing for strengthened provisions in the legislation that –

• Disclose the pesticides’ chemical composition, as some ingredients harm the respiratory system, and others are immuno-suppressants, both problematic during a pandemic;
• Enhance focus on actions shown to effectively reduce incidence of EEE and WNV, such as more reliance on larvicides, restoring fish habitat in streams and wetlands, and public education; and
• Require state agencies to follow a science-based mosquito-borne disease management plan that includes emergency spray authorizations based on predefined thresholds of disease-carrying mosquitoes set by the Commissioner of Public Health.

“Mosquito control strategies must use the best science available – even during a pandemic,” said Wendy Heiger-Bernays, Clinical Professor, Boston University School of Public Health. “Authorizing the spray of toxic chemicals without adequate consideration of the full suite of public health impacts is short-sighted. Additionally, residents of the Commonwealth should expect transparency and accountability, including publicly available notification.”

Prior to the changes, a Dear Colleague letter was circulated by State Representative Carolyn Dykema and State Senator Adam Hinds, urging the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health to redraft the legislation. The letter was signed by 75 elected officials in the 200 member state legislature. The bill is currently in the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing.

Pesticide use is often billed as a silver bullet for mosquito control, but such claims are rarely if ever true. An effective public health mosquito management strategy emphasizes monitoring, source reduction, public education, and larvadicing. Programs that focus on killing adult mosquitoes after they are hatched, flying, and biting people and animals is the least effective means of mosquito abatement. Research finds that aerosol plumes from truck mounted ultra-low volume spraying fail to make adequate contact with target mosquitoes at the rate necessary to achieve disease reduction. And while adulticides (pesticides intended to kill adult mosquitoes) may indiscriminately reduce some level of flying insect abundance, larval mosquitoes remain.

The coalition, consisting of Beyond Pesticides, Clean Water Action, Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), EcoHealth Advocates, Jones River Watershed Association, Lead for Pollinators, Mass Audubon, Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC),  Massachusetts Beekeepers Association,  Massachusetts Rivers Alliance, Massachusetts Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Northeast Organic Farming Association of Massachusetts (NOFA/Mass), Regeneration Massachusetts, and Toxics Action Center, is continuing to suggest amendments to the bill. A fact sheet from the coalition with additional details on the bill, further amendments, and mosquito management is available here.

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

Image by Kate Ausburn, Lock-on at AGL’s CSG fracking site at Gloucester, New Jersey (Photo: Gloucester lock-on against…/cc/flickr)

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2020) A new, simultaneous chemical identification method has found the presence of the weed killer atrazine and 200+ other hazardous chemicals in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) wastewater or produced water, according to collaborative research published in the Journal of Separation Science by scientists at the University of Toledo (UToledo) and the University of Texas at Arlington. Although produced water is a waste product of fracking, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows many states to reuse produced water in agriculture and other industries or dispose of it into waterways.

There is serious concern about the safety of produced water and it being a widespread source of pollution. Current disposal and purification practices do not guarantee environmental pollutant’s removal from produced water. This research, “Optimization of thin film solid phase microextraction and data deconvolution methods for accurate characterization of organic compounds in produced water,” highlights the need for comprehensive chemical composition assessment of produced water, whether for reuse or disposal. Currently, EPA waives requirements that chemical companies (e.g., Syngenta in the case of atrazine) monitor for the presence of pesticides in waterways, endangering public health of the environment.

Because produced water, whether treated or not, is typically not void of toxic chemicals, its safety is increasingly being called into question. Various toxic chemicals include biocides (poisonous substances like pesticides) that are used to kill interfering microorganisms, prevent pipe corrosion, and stimulate the extraction process. Some biocide formulations include ingredients like 2-(2-methoxy ethoxy) ethanol, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether—a reproductive toxicant that causes fetal abnormalities, organ deformities, and decreased male fertility (listed as a Prop65 chemical by the state of California). A Yale University public health analysis finds fracking operations release fifty-five chemicals into the air and water that are known carcinogens, 20 of which increase the risk of leukemia and lymphoma. Other fracking health implications include asthma and low birth weights. Oil and natural gas production is exempt or excluded from several major federal environmental laws (e.g., Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Superfund), allowing the industry to use produced water in agriculture or dispose of it in waterways without restrictions.

Emanuela Gionfriddo, Ph.D., assistant professor of analytical chemistry in the UToledo Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and the School of Green Chemistry and Engineering, states, “Our work [is] aimed to provide a new, simple and cost-effective method for the comprehensive characterization of chemicals and fill the gap of knowledge currently existing about the chemical composition of this waste product of the oil and natural gas industry.”

Oil and natural gas companies are researching ways to cut costs associated with the clean-up of produced water, as existing treatment processes using reverse osmosis and distillation to remove salts, and radioactive substances are expensive and may result in residual contamination.

In this research, chemists at the new Dr. Nina McClelland Laboratory for Water Chemistry and Environmental Analysis at UToledo created an optimized solid-phase microextraction (SPME) protocol using thin-film devices to distinguish organic compounds in produced water. The thin-film devices contain embedded polydimethylsiloxane (a silicone polymer) and hydrophilic‐lipophilic particles, restrained to a carbon, mesh surface. Thin-film devices’ characteristic properties make it highly reusable for general extraction analysis. To ensure extraction results are reproducible while maintaining the minimal chemical compound loss, chemists evaluated multiple parameters. Chemists extracted all organic chemical compounds in produced water samples for 15 minutes, followed by a 3-second rinse process. Post extraction, researchers used one‐dimensional gas chromatography in conjunction with mass spectrometry and data deconvolution to identify individual chemicals in the produced water samples. 

Scientists’ new SPME protocol allows efficient extraction of additives and hydrocarbons in produced water, simultaneously and tentatively identifying 201 chemical compounds from fracking wastewater samples. Chemicals include: the pesticide atrazine; 1,4-dioxane, an organic compound; toluene, a hydrocarbon solvent; and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Public concerns surrounding extensive water use in hydraulic fracturing grow as well water use and produced water increased from 2011 to 2016 by 770% and 1440%, respectively. A 2017 study reveals that the oil and gas industry produced 380 million barrels of wastewater in Pennsylvania from 1992 to 2017, with one out of every seven barrels produced in 2017. Many states use treated produced water to irrigate organic and non-organic crops, compensating for excessive water use, as the federal government leaves fracking regulations largely up to state governments. Even if treated produced water bypasses agriculture use, oil and gas companies dispose of produced water in waterways or ground pits (wastewater disposal wells).

Oil and natural gas companies face a plethora of lawsuits by activist organizations, local communities, legislators for contaminating well water and groundwater sources, exposing residents and workers to toxic chemicals. Most recently, a federal judge awarded two Pennsylvania families $4.2 million in damages after fracking operations contaminated their drinking water. Other lawsuits heavily focus on the geological concerns surrounding fracking operations and earthquakes. According to the U.S. government geologists, Oklahoma endures more earthquakes than California, solely from fracking and produced water disposal wells. Some states (i.e., New York, Maryland) ban fracking altogether, citing concerns over health risks. However, even upon fracking ban, imports of fracking water for reuse or disposal to frack-free states still threaten human, animal, and environmental health.

Previous chemical analysis protocols make it nearly impossible to determine how much of a risk fracking poses as the fracking process uses chemicals unidentifiable by the initial analysis. However, the use of the new SPME protocol in this study can inform us of the exact chemical components in produced water. Dr. Gionfriddo notes SPME’s importance by stating: “Current methods for chemical characterization of produced water can give an estimate of the total amount of contamination but do not give information about what type of contamination is present. […] It could be that a molecule can be still very toxic even if present at very low concentration, or it has the potential to accumulate in the body over time, so the point is to know exactly what is in produced water, not only how much.”

Chemical carcinogens, solvents, and petroleum distillates are present in produced water, directly polluting drinking water sources. The 201 individual chemicals that researchers have found in produced water include 1,4-dioxane, toluene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and atrazine. 1, 4 dioxane is an eye and respiratory tract irritant. Toluene causes confusion, weakness, and vision and hearing loss—even at low exposure levels. Scientific evidence links polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to various skin, lung, bladder, liver, and stomach cancers. Health effects of atrazine exposure include fetal birth defects and cancer-causing endocrine disruption. Atrazine is of specific concern as the Trump Administration waives the requirement of multinational chemical company Syngenta-ChemChina to continue monitoring Midwest waterways for the presence of the weedkiller atrazine, through 2020. Produced water inputs into waterways—via disposal or run-off from agricultural use—and lack of specific pesticide monitoring can cause toxic chemicals to accumulate and synergize in the aquatic environment, polluting water sources.

Because of the known and unknown health hazards associated with toxic compounds found in produced fracking water, Beyond Pesticides believes its use in food production, in addition to disposal into waterways, is irresponsible. Chemicals in produced water are not always the same for every fracking operations, and many chemicals still need proper identification. Ronald Emmons, a UToledo Ph.D. candidate, relays the significance of researching interactions between chemicals in produced water and soil properties: “More research also is needed to test the uptake of these chemicals in crops when [recycling] produced water for agriculture. We need to study if and how these chemicals from the produced water can accumulate in the soil watered with produced water, and if these chemicals can transfer from the soil to the crops.”

Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor and report on the use of pesticides and other hazardous chemicals in fracking, as well as related government and industry actions, through the Daily News Blog, Action of the Week, and its journal, Pesticides and You. Help divest from nonrenewable energy sources by using renewable resources and energy-conserving practices whenever possible. In a home powered by natural gas, cut down on gas use (and bill) by weatherproofing your house and lowering the thermostat when not home. Tell EPA to eliminate the use of produced water in agriculture, and regulate wastewater disposal.  

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

Source(s): Journal of Separation Science, University of Toledo

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2020) While wearing a mask is an important practice to help reduce the chance of Covid-19 infection, a mask produced with pesticide-laden material for Tennessee residents has been identified as elevating the virus’ health risks. The state of Tennessee began last week and then stopped this week providing residents with free face masks made from sock fabric incorporated with antimicrobial silver pesticide. The investigative unit of NewsChannel 5 Nashville uncovered that the masks contain a toxic antimicrobial pesticide. Because of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) interpretation of federal pesticide law, textiles and other materials, typically plastics, infused with toxic antimicrobial substances are not evaluated by the agency for the wide range of exposure patterns associated with the use of these toxic products. In addition, the silver product in the sock material, Silvadur 930 Flex, states on its label that over 99% of product ingredients are “other ingredients” and provides no disclosure on their potential hazards.

Beyond Pesticides’ board member Warren Porter, PhD, environmental toxicology professor at University of Wisconsin at Madison, in an interview with NewsChannel 5, assessed the situation bluntly. Dr. Porter told reporters over a Zoom interview, “I wouldn’t wear one,” after explaining the potential impacts on the respiratory system.

A day after the second piece on the masks aired, with the support of Beyond Pesticides’ staff, Governor Bill Lee (R) recalled the masks after the Tennessee Black Caucus of State Legislators called for a recall of the masks and an investigation. “We know that many people in some of our more disadvantaged communities took advantage of the giveaway and now we need to protect them from the protection they believed we were providing for them,” Rep. G.A. Hardaway, D-Memphis told Channel 5. “We are concerned that many of those people may have health issues that may have become aggravated by the masks.”

The masks, dubbed “sock masks” because the state contracted with a sock production company to fabricate them, are impregnated with the pesticide product Silvadur 930 flex. Containing silver as an active ingredient, Silvadur and other similar products are registered for use in consumer goods like carpet, footwear, wall and floor coverings, and other industrial and household fabrics. Its use is intended to inhibit the growth of microbes that may cause “deterioration of the treated product.” DowDupont, the primary registrant for Silvadur and associated products, includes on its website for the product line a banner that reads “Trusted and Safe.” Dr. Porter disagrees with that statement.

“You start messing around with DNA, which is the genetic material controlling your cell operations, you interfere with the messaging and bugger up the communication that goes on in cells, like I say, you’ve got a molecular bull in a china shop,” Dr. Porter told NewsChannel 5. “There are all kinds of ways that it can disrupt cellular activity.”

Under 40 CFR 156.10(a)(5)(ix) pesticide manufacturers are prohibited from asserting that a pesticide is “safe” without a qualifying phrase such as “when used as directed.” Silver can be absorbed into the lungs, and excessive exposure can cause lung or kidney lesions, according to prior EPA data. Silvadur’s label indicates it causes moderate eye irritation, and instructs those in contact to “wash thoroughly…before eating,drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco, or using the toilet.”

Asked about the risk of having Silvadur products so close to one’s nose and mouth, Dr. Porter responded, “That would definitely be more vulnerable because you’ve got all your respiratory surfaces and a lot of things that can get through those respiratory surfaces.”

Although Governor Lee’s efforts to protect residents from Covid-19 by encouraging the use of face masks may have been well placed, as Beyond Pesticides has urged throughout the coronavirus pandemic, it is critical to avoid the use of toxic pesticides that may further undermine respiratory or immune system health. This is true whether it comes to the use of disinfectants, or attempts to manage mosquito vector diseases.

Reporters for News Channel 5 asked Dr. Porter, “If you were advising the governor of the state of Tennessee, what would you advise him about these masks?”

“Well,” he responded, “I would advise him to try to get his money back.”

Shortly after the NewsChannel5 piece ran, officials in Nashville’s Metro Public Health Department announced they would postpone distribution of the silver-tainted masks “out of an abundance of caution” and to “allow Metro Health officials to learn more about the masks from state officials.”

Impregnating any consumer fabric with potentially hazardous antimicrobials is an unnecessary measure. However, the pesticide industry has long played on consumers fears of bacteria in order to find new markets for its risky products. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends simple cloth face coverings to protect against coronavirus (see here for the recommendation and how to make your own face covering). Watch out and avoid any clothing that markets “extra protection” in the form of a patented antimicrobial.

Underlying a serious public health threat associated with inhaling antimicrobial silver, there is a serious policy issue behind this story. The sock and mask manufacturer, Renfro, responded to the TV piece by distinguishing its use of Silvadur 930 Flex silver antimicrobial pesticide from another silver antimicrobial, Silvadur, claiming that its product is “safe.” The only difference on the labels of these products is the percentage of silver. While claiming safety, the manufacturer admits that the pesticide washes out of the fabric.

All these products treated with antimicrobials are not regulated by EPA unless they are making a public health claim—under what is known as the “treated article exemption.” The manufacturer exclaiming the safety of the sock material does not disclose the exemption from exposure reviews that its socks (as do other antimicrobial incorporated products) enjoy. Renfro notes that the toxic antimicrobials are “used for inhibiting microbial growth in order to reduce odor on textiles and garments.” EPA does not look at exposure patterns associated with the treated textiles. Beyond Pesticides has long told EPA that it is an outrage not to evaluate the exposure patterns associated with textiles incorporated with pesticides. See EPA’s explanation of the treated article exemption. Beyond Pesticides maintains that this EPA failure allows manufacturers to mislead the public on product safety and efficacy.

For more information on the hazards associated with many antimicrobials registered as pesticides, as well as proper safety measures to clean surfaces of coronavirus, see Beyond Pesticides’ program page on Disinfectants, Antimicrobials, and Sanitizers.

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

 Source: NewsChannel5 Nashville

(Beyond Pesticides, June 2, 2020) During the April meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), there was near-unanimous sentiment expressed by NOSB members and stakeholders that the failure of the National Organic Program at USDA to act on NOSB recommendations regarding so-called “inert” ingredients hurts organic producers and consumers and the environment. The NOSB has only one alternative left to force USDA action—denying relisting at the Fall meeting.

Tell the National Organic Program and USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue to initiate action to begin NOSB review of “inerts” now.

Dr. Asa Bradman, who summarized the issue for the NOSB at the Spring 2020 meeting, is an expert in environmental health, and as part of his day job, leads studies focusing on pesticides, flame retardants, metals, emerging pollutants, VOCs, indoor air quality and other contaminants. As he said at the meeting, “These are often active ingredients.”

In fact, the ingredients not listed on a label of a pesticide product—which are not fully reviewed for their adverse effects—may be the most toxic chemicals in the formulation. Recent research, Toxicity of formulants and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides and other pesticides (Toxicology Reports 5, 2018), by Defarge, de Vendômois, and Séralini demonstrates the need to disclose and test all ingredients in pesticide products, as well as the full formulation. The research tested the toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate, so-called “inerts” in glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), and the pesticide formulations–looking at toxicity to target organisms, toxicity to human cells, and endocrine-disrupting activity. In addition to the GBH products, they studied a number of other pesticides.

Although GBH products are not permitted in organic production, the results of the Defarge et al study are relevant to decisions concerning materials used in organic crops and livestock. The scientists found that for GBH products, glyphosate was not the major toxic component–to either plants or human cells–and that formulations, as well as glyphosate alone, are endocrine disruptors at low concentrations. Glyphosate alone did not show herbicidal effects on tomato plants for five days following application. Formulations that included POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine) are the most toxic to plants and human cells, and POEA itself is highly toxic to plants and animals. GBH formulations are no more toxic to plants than the formulants (“inert” ingredients). The researchers concluded, “Hence G [glyphosate] did not appear to be the main active substance of the herbicide, but rather the formulants.”

The researchers also identified a number of other toxic substances in the products, including arsenic, chromium, cobalt, nickel, and lead. Arsenic was present in almost all samples. This research challenges the apparent assumption by NOP that “inert” ingredients are less important to review than “active” ingredients. The “active” ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production receive intense scrutiny before the NOSB allows their use. However, “inert” ingredients –which, as the Defarge et al study demonstrates, may actually be the active ingredients— have not received any scrutiny by the NOSB for compliance with OFPA criteria.

In the Beyond Pesticides report “Inert” Ingredients Used in Organic Production, we summarize what is known about the toxicity of the 127 “inerts” then known to be used in organic production, compared to the 39 synthetic active ingredients on the National List. More “inerts” than active ingredients used in organic production have been shown to be acutely toxic, neurotoxic, carcinogenic, nephrotoxic or hepatotoxic, sensitizers, endocrine disruptors, and toxic to aquatic organisms.

NOP must respond to the NOSB recommendations that “inert” ingredients used in organic production be reviewed by the NOSB according to OFPA criteria by initiating actions to carry out NOSB recommendations.

Tell the National Organic Program and USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue to initiate action to begin NOSB review of “inerts” now.

Letter to USDA Secretary Perdue, Agricultural Marketing Service Administrator Summers , and National Organic Program Deputy Administrator

I am concerned that the National Organic Program (NOP) has not followed through with recommendations from its advisory board, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), to fully review “inert” ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production according to the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act.

During the April meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), there was near-unanimous sentiment expressed by NOSB members and stakeholders that the failure of NOP to act on NOSB recommendations regarding so-called “inert” ingredients hurts organic producers and consumers and the environment. NOP inaction leaves NOSB with only one alternative—denying relisting at the Fall meeting.

Dr. Asa Bradman, who summarized the issue for the NOSB at the Spring 2020 meeting, is an expert in environmental health, and as part of his day job, leads studies focusing on pesticides, flame retardants, metals, emerging pollutants, VOCs, indoor air quality and other contaminants. As he said at the meeting, “These are often active ingredients.”

In fact, ingredients not listed on a pesticide product label—which are not fully reviewed for their adverse effects—may be the most toxic chemicals in the formulation. Recent research, reported in “Toxicity of formulants and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides and other pesticides” (Toxicology Reports 5, 2018), by Defarge, de Vendômois, and Séralini, tested the toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate, so-called “inerts” in glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), and the pesticide formulations–looking at toxicity to target organisms, toxicity to human cells, and endocrine-disrupting activity. In addition to the GBH products, they studied a number of other pesticides.

Although GBH products are not permitted in organic production, the results of the Defarge et al study are relevant to decisions concerning materials used in organic crops and livestock. The scientists found that for GBH products, glyphosate was not the major toxic component–to either plants or human cells–and that formulations, as well as glyphosate alone, are endocrine disruptors at low concentrations. The researchers concluded, “Hence G [glyphosate] did not appear to be the main active substance of the herbicide, but rather the formulants.”

The researchers also identified a number of other toxic substances in the products, including arsenic, chromium, cobalt, nickel, and lead. This research challenges the apparent assumption by NOP that “inert” ingredients are less important to review than “active” ingredients. The “active” ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production receive intense scrutiny before the NOSB allows their use. However, “inert” ingredients–which, as the Defarge et al study demonstrates, may actually be the active ingredients—have not received any scrutiny by the NOSB for compliance with OFPA criteria.

In the report “Inert” Ingredients Used in Organic Production, Beyond Pesticides summarizes what is known about the toxicity of the 127 “inerts” then known to be used in organic production, compared to the 39 synthetic active ingredients on the National List. More “inerts” than active ingredients used in organic production have been shown to be acutely toxic, neurotoxic, carcinogenic, nephrotoxic or hepatotoxic, sensitizers, endocrine disruptors, and toxic to aquatic organisms.

NOP must respond to the NOSB recommendations that “inert” ingredients used in organic production be reviewed by the NOSB according to OFPA criteria by initiating actions to carry out NOSB recommendations.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2020) The President issued another executive order, on May 7, that continues his administration’s dissembling on matters that affect the well-being of everyday Americans. This EO (executive order) purports to “promote American seafood competitiveness and economic growth.” The reality, as the Center for American Progress reports, is that the “bulk of the Trump administration’s new executive order sets up a structure for permitting of offshore aquaculture in federal waters with short timelines and few environmental safeguards.” This EO will further erode regulations that have governed the operation of so-called “fish farms,” and open enormous marine areas to exploitation by this industry. Beyond Pesticides has argued for more-protective regulation of the aquaculture industry, considering the variety of pesticides and chemical inputs it uses, and the impacts on local ecosystems.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines aquaculture as any “farming of aquatic organisms, including baitfish, crustaceans, food fish, mollusks, ornamental fish, sport or game fish, and other aquaculture products. Farming involves some form of intervention in the rearing process, such as seeding, stocking, feeding, protection from predators, etc. Fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and other aquatic products caught or harvested by the public from non-controlled waters or beds are considered wild caught and are not included as aquaculture.”

In coastal and offshore waters, the industry includes both fed and unfed sectors: fish such as salmon are fed by the “farmers,” whereas bivalve shellfish, such as mussels, clams, and oysters, feed on plankton that live in seawater and do not require additional dietary inputs. Most U.S. aquaculture is currently for bivalves, which are filter feeders; proponents claim that they actually clean the water and can help restore polluted waterways. However, shellfish farming brings with it other problems: competition in localized areas for nutrients, seagrass loss, and excessive sediment buildup that can disturb benthic organisms (those that inhabit that bottom of a waterbody, including sediment layers) and local ecosystems.

U.S. aquaculture (aka “fish farming”) is a $1.5 billion industry, spread across just under 3,000 “farms.” It is regulated at the federal level primarily by the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For example, FDA deals with food safety and pharmaceutical issues, and EPA regulates wastewater permitting. Other federal agencies play more peripheral roles; they include: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce; the Center for Veterinary Medicine within the FDA; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the USDA; and FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) under the Department of the Interior (DOI). 

At the state and local levels, regulations may vary considerably with local statutes, and often with the location of such operations — whether coastal, inland, wetland, or offshore. There is no particular consistency in regulation because each state and locality may have its own statutes and protocols related to permitting — which process may consider zoning, water use, waste discharge, wildlife management, processing, and other aspects of aquaculture operations.

The Trump administration has a long record of dismantling environmental protections, failing to enforce those that do exist, undermining science, and weighting agrochemical and other industry interests over those of the public and the environment. It is characterizing this recent EO as an economic “boost,” but in reality, is (once again) using the pandemic as a justification for escalating its agenda: slashing regulations that protect health and the environment, and exploiting and commodifying public resources for private gain.

The primary intent of the EO, as noted above, is to establish “a structure for permitting of offshore aquaculture in federal waters with short timelines and few environmental safeguards.” The Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN) has criticized this Executive Order in part because of the unusual brevity of the timeline it sets out: 90 days for drafting of a permit, and two years for an environmental review. The organization also notes the concern among environmental groups that due diligence will not be a priority. 

In its justification, the order references “removing outdated and unnecessarily burdensome regulations,” reducing “burdens on domestic fishing,” and increasing production. Weakening or dismantling federal regulations further weakens federal regulations and increases problems associated with collapsing stocks, polluted habitats, and loss of hundreds of thousands of marine creatures through “bycatch” (a product of destructive fishing practices).

The argument about an economic boost through expansion of offshore aquaculture — so as to increase seafood production — escalates an environmental contamination of waterways. American Progress rightly notes, “Production is not the problem; demand is. Boats laden with fish and shellfish are being turned away by seafood buyers because with global supply chains in disarray and so many restaurants closed, there is no way to process, store, or sell more product. More than two-thirds of the money that Americans spend on seafood is spent at restaurants, and sales in that sector have plunged by more than 90 percent. . . . With nowhere to sell the fish they are catching now, it seems likely that . . . the fisheries management section of . . . [the] executive order has much more to do with [the administration’s] long-standing push to allow industrial fishing in the few areas now protected from it and far less to do with aiding the communities devastated by COVID-19.”

In addition, expansion of large, industrial fish farms could flood the market with cheaper farmed fish, hurting the sustainably caught seafood sector. Given the grim realities of seafood sales during the pandemic, this economic case is exposed for what it is: an advancing of the administration’s desire to establish aquaculture farms in federal waters. Lead Counsel for the Center for Food Safety, George Kimbrell, commented in a Seattle Times article (on a federal court case in which NOAA was the defendant), “NOAA [has] wanted to do this sort of industrial [aquaculture] permitting not just in the Gulf of Mexico but in the Pacific and along the Atlantic coast.” NOAA has also pursued rulemaking for the industry in waters off of Hawaii and other Pacific islands.

Modern Farmer reports FERN’s assertion that this EO opens the door for large offshore fish farms, saying that it is “designed, at its core, to expand the scope and facilities for aquaculture. What that likely means is a reduction in regulations, and the creation of large offshore fish farms.” Further, the order puts the regulation of these farms — typically giant cages in which fish are raised — under the administration of NOAA, and, in essence, invites input from industry on what regulations should be eliminated.

The EO permits finfish facilities “in marine and coastal waters out to the limit of the territorial sea and in ocean waters beyond the territorial sea within the exclusive economic zone of the United States.” That language describes a vast ocean area that will become vulnerable to aquaculture activity: the “territorial sea” extends from the continental (and Hawaiian) shoreline to 12 miles offshore; the “exclusive economic zone” constitutes 3.4 million square nautical miles of ocean — an area larger than the combined land area of all 50 states. Prior to this EO, such facilities were not permitted in federal waters between three and 200 miles offshore.

The environmental impacts of coastal and offshore aquaculture have been amply chronicled by Beyond Pesticides and others. They include the pollution from fish farm effluent, antibiotic and pesticide inputs and residues, impacts on local marine ecosystems, coastal habitat loss, and genetic and health risks to wild marine populations. One example of the pesticide issues related to aquaculture is the use of insecticides to control sea lice in farmed salmon, covered by Beyond Pesticides here and here. Another is the pesticide residue from farmed fish food pellets that can be consumed by nearby wild marine organisms. Oddly, the food fed to farmed salmon often contains wild-caught fish, which might presumably be better used directly for human food.

More details on some of those environmental impacts and risks include:

• the high-density environment in which farmed fish are kept makes outbreaks of disease more likely
• pathogens among a population of farmed stock can move out of the fish pens to infect wild populations
• farmed (and/or genetically modified/bred) stock can escape pens and interbreed with wild populations
• wild marine creatures can get entangled in the nets or other gear used for the farm pens, causing injury and sometimes, death
• the waste from fed aquaculture systems can represent significant sources of organic matter introduced into coastal ecosystems, potentially altering the local food chain, depleting the water of oxygen, and generating toxic algal blooms

There are myriad protective and responsible ways in which the federal government could help fisher people and coastal communities in this tough economic moment. The Center for American Progress recommends, for instance, these measures:

• increased direct aid to: commercial seafood businesses, including small aquaculture operations; the recreational industry, such as charter boats and guides; and small owner-operator businesses; additionally, increased direct federal purchase of seafood
• investment in ocean and coastal habitat restoration
• improved, science-based monitoring and management of fisheries and aquaculture enterprises

The federal government should implement muscular safeguards on the industry that would avoid harmful impacts on wild marine fish stocks and other organisms, reduce water pollution, eliminate the use of pesticides in aquaculture, and prevent habitat destruction. A sustainable aquaculture industry, according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program, would require robust and timely production data, prohibit discharge of wastes over certain environmentally determined levels, and specify appropriate siting locations for such operations. Instead, this administration has opted, as the Center for American Progress says, to “focus on weakening successful fisheries management measures and selling off federal waters to big corporations with few safeguards.”

Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor and report on developments in aquaculture, as well as related governmental and industry actions, through the Daily News Blog, Action of the Week, and its journal, Pesticides and You.

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

Source: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2020/05/22/485338/new-trump-executive-order-sells-off-ocean-fails-coastal-communities/

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2020) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently released a report highlighting employee discontent with scientific integrity (SI) within the agency. While the number of official complaints about scientific integrity have been fairly minimal over the 8 years that the 2012 policy has been in place—only 85 complaints were filed—the new survey found 400 EPA employees had experienced, but did not report, potential violations of EPA’s scientific integrity policy. Further, according to OIG’s findings, dissatisfaction regarding scientific integrity abounds within the agency.

EPA’s 2012 Scientific Integrity (SI) Policy was instated to “ensure scientific integrity throughout EPA and promote scientific and ethical standards, including quality standards; communications with the public; the use of peer review and advisory committees; and professional development.” EPA’s policy defines scientific integrity as “the adherence to professional values and practices when conducting, supervising, communicating and utilizing the results of science and scholarship.” OIG’s performance audit took place from September 2018 to February 2019 and included a survey given between November and December of 2018. OIG’s report states, “The survey was structured to examine (1) awareness of and familiarity with the SI Policy, (2) experience with the four focus areas of the SI Policy shown previously in Table 1, and (3) awareness and experience with the process for reporting potential SI violations, as well as reasons for not reporting.”

51% of survey respondents “with a basis to judge” said they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that “senior leadership makes the basis for any policy decision accessible and transparent.” Additionally, close to 60% of respondents reported dissatisfaction with EPA’s culture of scientific integrity and release of scientific information to the public.

Fear of retaliation, belief that reporting wouldn’t make a difference, and perceived suppression or interference by leadership or management were common reasons employees did not report violations.

Comments by employees noted discontent with “support for or understanding of” scientific integrity by senior leadership, as well as views that political appointees “do not value or adequately consider science in policy, rulemaking, or enforcement decisions.” Employees also expressed concern that leadership is “greatly influenced by political, industry, state, or regulated groups.”

In an official response to the OIG report, EPA responded that, “The EPA Deputy Administrator, in cooperation with the EPA Science Advisor, will work with the Administrator to devise an action plan to address this Recommendation.” They said that officials will “analyze the OIG scientific integrity survey, together with previous surveys… and reports of alleged violations of the EPA Scientific Integrity Policy to inform this plan.” However, the report also names an issue with enforcement regarding violations as adjudication procedures have not been finalized and EPA has pushed back their due date for completion to September 30, 2020.

While EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Doug Benevento responded in a memo that, “We are confident that the work conducted at the Agency everyday rests upon a strong foundation of science,” there is much evidence to the contrary. The Hill reports, “Last year, former Interior Department employees told lawmakers that they faced retaliation for the science work, and in the past, lawmakers have called for investigations into an employee’s claim that he was reassigned based on his work on climate change.”

Beyond Pesticides acts as watchdog for scientific integrity, and has noted significant failings including EPA’s proposal to increase the amount of the weed killer atrazine allowed in U.S. waterways by 50% during the chemical’s registration review—a stark reversal of previous proposals to significantly reduce atrazine levels in the environment. EPA also put forth a proposal to further weaken protections regarding 23 pyrethroid insecticides that have been repeatedly linked by peer-reviewed studies to neurological issues such as learning disabilities in children

State governments, too, are standing up and taking notice: A coalition of eight attorney generals (AGs) from different states recently came together to criticize a draft risk assessment of the soil fumigant 1,3-D in which EPA proposed downgrading the cancer risk rating from “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” to “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.” The AGs contend this motion is capricious and excludes entire categories of scientific evidence, stating in their public comment, “EPA’s new cancer risk classification dangerously ignores science and downplays the risks individuals face when they are exposed to 1,3-D.” Standing out above the many examples cited, the singular study EPA referenced in its assessment regarding mutagenicity based its “statistical significance” on a sample size of only five rats.

Standing up for scientific integrity is more critical than ever. Ask Congress to request an investigation into whether EPA is ignoring its statutory duty and regulatory requirements to use science in its proposals. Keep track and fight back with more actions through Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week.

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

Source: The Hill

BMJ Journals

(Beyond Pesticides, May 28, 2020) Exposure to agricultural and industrial pesticides, solvents (thinners), electromagnetic fields, and heavy metals predispose humans to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to an Italian research study, “Environmental and Occupational Risk Factors of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Population-Based Case-Control Study,” published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Although research supports ALS’s genetic etiology, epidemiologic research associating ALS risks and to environmental, or work-related risk factors (i.e., pesticide use, pollutant exposure, heavy metal exposure, etc.) has been inconsistent and non-definitive. This research demonstrates the importance of assessing aggregate health risks associated with occupational pesticide exposure, especially when determining potential exposure routes in specific occupational sectors. In the study, researchers note, “In particular, having an occupation in the agricultural sector, especially with a long duration of the working activity as well as occupational exposure to some chemicals…might increase ALS risk.”

While scientists extensively study the epidemiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)—a rare, yet fatal neurodegenerative disease—occupational and environmental hazards inducing random (sporadic) or hereditary ALS diagnoses remain vague. With researchers predicting a global ALS incidence increase of 69% by 2040, identifying ALS’s causal factors are important to future research.

In this research, Italian researchers conducted a case-control, population-based study for four Italian provinces (Catania, Sicily; Modena, Italy; Novara, Italy; and Reggio Emilia, Italy) to evaluate occupational and environmental components associated with ALS triggers. The study’s test group encompassed 95 (n=95) people diagnosed with ALS, while the control group included 135 (n=135) people without ALS, all of whom researchers matched by sex, age, and location. Each group member responded to a self-administered questionnaire via regular-mail or in-person at the neurology department of each study’s hospital. Study participants reported their career division, job type, education status, military service status, as well as exposure to various unique environmental factors: heavy metals, pesticides, chemicals, and electromagnetic fields. Researchers estimated ALS risk using an unconditional logistic regression model to calculate the odds ratio (OR)—a measure of association between exposure and an outcome—with a 95% confidence interval, adjusting for sex, age, and education level.

Results find that agricultural workers have higher risks of developing ALS, with the highest risk association for those who experience over ten years of pesticide exposure in agricultural work. Results show a positive association between work-related solvents exposure (i.e., paint thinners; and paint removers) and disease risk. Non-environmental, occupational pesticide exposure, namely fungicides, augments threats of developing ALS. The risk of developing ALS intensifies indiscriminately with exposure to heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and selenium. Electromagnetic fields marginally foster disease risk via both occupational and environmental exposure. Lastly, participants living near bodies of water are at higher risk for developing ALS, possible due to neurotoxic outgassing from cyanobacteria (blue-green algae).

The agricultural industry has a long-standing history of synthetic chemical use, which disproportionally affects farmworkers’ health. Farmworkers’ children are at greater risk as their immune system response is immature and especially vulnerable to stressors from pesticide exposure. Synthetic chemicals present in pesticides, cosmetics, industrial solvents, heavy metals, etc. accumulate in our bodies, causing an amalgamation of health effects, or body burns. Although many chemicals bacteria metabolize in—and eliminate from the body, pesticides (like organochlorine pesticides) can bioaccumulate over a lifetime. Pesticides expose farmers, farmworkers, and their families to heightened risks of various cancers (i.e., prostate, hepatic, liver, etc.), mental health problems (i.e., depression), respiratory illnesses (asthma), endocrine disruption, and many other pesticide-induced diseases. Extensive pesticide use can predispose human pathogenic to antibiotic resistance, bolstering bacterial virulence.

Currently, this study indicates agricultural occupations as frontrunners for major pesticide exposure scenarios significantly associated with ALS development. Agricultural employees have a 2.1 times higher likelihood of developing ALS, principally due to extensive pesticide use, whereas industrial employees have a 1.48 times higher risk of developing ALS, in comparison to military occupations. Long-time (≥ 10 years) field farmworkers have a 2.7 times higher likelihood of developing ALS. Importantly, vast agricultural fungicide use can cause deadly fungi, like Candida Auris, to have antifungal resistant properties, which echo bacterial antibiotic resistance. The study points to pesticide runoff from agricultural fields into nearby water sources as contaminants that increase nutrient inputs for the growth of harmful neurotoxic cyanobacteria. Although residential pesticide use lacks comprehensive research regarding ALS risk, studies suggests residential use of herbicide pesticides, specifically gardening, play an etiological role in developing ALS.

Although occupational and environmental factors, like pesticides, adversely affect human health —disproportionately affecting vulnerable population groups – there are several limitations in defining real-world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. The adverse health effects of pesticides, exposure, and the aggregate risk of pesticides showcase a need for more extensive research surrounding occupational and non-occupational pesticide exposure, especially in agriculture. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices. A complement to buying organic is contacting various organic farming organizations to learn more about what you can do. Those impacted by pesticide drift can refer to Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency and contact the organization for additional information.

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

Source(s): ALS News Today, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2020) Research published last week in the journal Scientific Reports uncovers new ways that neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides hamper the growth and development of honey bee colonies. As new data on the link between neonics and pollinator declines continues to flow from academic institutions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has re-opened the public comment period on its proposal to renew the registration of these highly toxic insecticides.

The present study, led by German scientists at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, uses new video techniques to observe the behavior of honey bees behind a glass-pane hive. Researchers filmed their study from start to finish, focusing on the effect of chronic sublethal doses of the neonciotinoids clothianidin and thiacloprid. Colonies were fed these chemicals in a sugar syrup over the course of three weeks in May and June.

Even at low levels, scientists found significant changes to brood rearing and development, and the behavior of nurse bees. Nurse bees play a pivotal role in honey bee colonies. These young worker bees clean out old brood cells (where larvae develop), feed larval bees after a queen lays its eggs, and finish by capping a brood cell with wax. Within capped cells, larval bees undergo metamorphosis and turn into fully developed honey bees.

Results showed that nurse bees exposed to low doses of neonics fed larvae less often, causing larval development to take up to 10 hours longer than hives without exposure. “For the first time, we were able to demonstrate that neonicotinoids also change the social behavior of bees,” study coauthor Paul Siefert, PhD, said in a press release. “This could point to the disruptions in nursing behavior due to neonicotinoids described by other scientists.”

The mechanism researchers discovered may help explain why neonic-exposed honey bee colonies are at increased risk of varroa mite infestation. In addition to depressing grooming behavior in adult workers, delays in brood development—and thus longer periods where larvae are uncapped -makes it easier for varroa mites to invade a hive and feed on pupae and larvae.   

The new method of study design and observation is an important step forward. “Our innovative technology makes it possible to gain fundamental scientific insights into social interactions in bee colonies, the biology of parasites, and the safety of pesticides,” said Dr. Siefert. However, political institutions like EPA are unlikely to include studies like these into consideration when conducting registration reviews for pesticides like the neonicotinoids. EPA is only required to review studies required to be submitted under the nation’s pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). These studies are not performed by independent academic institutions from colleges or universities; they are conducted by industry and industry-contracted labs by the company that intends to register the pesticide. In the case of neonicotinoids, Bayer and Syngenta/ChemChina provided the bulk of scientific studies to support registration.

EPA at best may consider Dr. Siefert’s study as supplemental to its overall review. On balance, this means the study will carry little effect on the agency’s ultimate decision whether to continue registration, which is not based purely on the science, but on a mixture of politics, science, and public opinion.

This is unfortunate, as Beyond Pesticides, alongside other beekeeping and environmental groups in comments to EPA show in painstaking detail, the independent science (the science not funded by the pesticide industry) is abundantly clear that neonicotinoids pose unacceptable adverse impacts on pollinator populations and other wildlife.

Those frustrated about the continued allowance of bee-toxic neonics in our environment are encouraged to express their concerns to EPA through the regulations.gov docket. Unique comments that tell your connection to the issue and employ science are more likely to be considered than form letters. For more information you can use to make your case, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective program page, including our extensive list of citations on our What the Science Shows webpage.

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

Source: Goethe University Frankfurt am Main Press Release (Phys.org), Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2020) Across the pond, the European Commission (EC) has announced plans to protect biodiversity and build a more sustainable food system, and identified the reduction of pesticide use  and the expansion of organic agriculture as pillars of the scheme. The EC expects that the initiative, which will require EU member states’ endorsement, will advance progress on the EU goal of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, given that 10% of emissions arise from the agricultural sector. The EC’s goals are important and laudable, but Beyond Pesticides is clear: reduction of pesticide use in service of them is not an adequate strategy to ensure long-term success. Genuine success requires the elimination of the use of synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and other toxic inputs, and the transition to agricultural and land management systems that work with nature, rather than fight against it. Regenerative, organic practices are the path to a livable future, according to Beyond Pesticides.

The EC, which is the executive branch of the EU, expects its plan to reduce use of pesticides by 50% by 2030; reduce use of antimicrobial chemicals, including antibiotics, in fish and animal farming by 50%; dedicate a minimum of 25% of arable land area to organic production (as opposed to the current 8%); and plant an additional 3 billion trees by 2030.

The rationale for the initiative is both environmental and economic. On the former, EC Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides commented, “Nature is vital for our physical and mental wellbeing, it filters our air and water, it regulates the climate and it pollinates our crops. But we are acting as if it didn’t matter, and losing it at an unprecedented rate.” The EC also believes that the transition to organic production for a larger proportion of the agricultural sector will help the EU recover from the impacts of the novel Coronavirus pandemic, generate 10–20% more jobs per hectare than conventional farming, and create more than 1.8 trillion euros in new economic value.

An EC case statement on the environment–economy interplay includes this summary: “The economic and social costs of inaction on environmental and climate issues would be huge, leading to frequent severe weather events and natural disasters, as well as reducing the average EU GDP by up to 2% and by even more in some parts of the EU. The world lost an estimated 3.5–18.5 trillion euros per year in ecosystem services from 1997 to 2011, owing to land-cover change, and an estimated 5.5–10.5 trillion euros per year from land degradation.”

Greenpeace EU is critical of the plan because it fails to commit to reductions in the production and consumption of meat. Livestock farming is a significant contributor to global warming emissions, and is often a source of pollution of waterways. Greenpeace EU agricultural policy direct Marco Contiero noted, “The European Commission has finally accepted the science and recognises that producing and consuming too much meat is hurting health, destroying nature and driving climate breakdown, but chooses to do nothing about it. . . . The Commission seems to be too cowardly even to end the few million going to EU-funded meat advertising, let alone reconsider the billions that support overproduction of meat in the first place.” The organization notes that the EC devoted 5 million euros to advertising of beef and veal in 2020, and that the “EU spends . . . 28 to 32 billion euros annually on livestock and feed production, while over 70% of all EU agricultural land is dedicated to feeding livestock.”

The role of conventional agriculture in the climate crisis is significant. Here in the U.S., agriculture contributed 10.5% of total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in 2018; much of that came from conventional livestock farming. A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) report for 1990–2013, for example, indicated that 66% of agricultural sector emissions were emitted by livestock, primarily as methane — a GHG “on steroids,” with 90–95 times the heat-trapping impacts of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years. In the past few years, beef cattle alone have been responsible for 62% of agricultural emissions in the U.S. A huge 30% of the Earth’s ice-free land mass is used to pasture livestock.

Yet livestock farming and ranching are not the only agricultural culprits in warming the planet, compromising human health, polluting ecosystems, destroying habitat, and fouling air, soil, and water — all of which impact food systems and biodiversity. Practices that dominate in conventional farming and land management are chemically intensive, using pesticides (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides), antibiotics, and synthetic fertilizers — many of which are petrochemically derived. The negative impacts of these compounds are rife:

• pesticides can have broad and lasting effects on human health for farmworkers through direct exposure, and broadly, for the public through residue on food, contamination of drinking water, or exposures in or on playgrounds, sports fields, parks, golf courses, etc.
• pesticides often harm or kill off-target organisms, which can harm wildlife and cause ecosystem havoc; pollinators, so critical to much of agriculture, are especially vulnerable.
• synthetic fertilizers and pesticides introduce extrinsic chemicals and “nutrients” that then run off into waterways, causing hypoxic dead zones that kill life in the local ecosystem and cause toxic algal blooms; and are destroying the ability of land management systems to draw down (sequester) carbon from the atmosphere, thus averting the climate crisis and biodiversity devastation..

Adding to the insidious dynamics of pesticide use is the inevitable development of resistance: as Beyond Pesticides wrote in its journal, Pesticides and You, “Broadscale and repeated use of a pesticide sets in motion the factors that drive the evolution of resistance in the target pest. Those that are not killed by the pesticide pass down the genes that allowed them to survive, perpetuating a toxic cycle.” A 2019 Daily News Blog entry describes the “pesticide–resistance dance” well: “When a target weed develops resistance to an herbicide, conventional agriculture responds — thanks to the chemical industry and its aggressive marketing and near hegemony on some seeds, such as soybeans — by using yet another herbicide, or doubling down with paired herbicides, or rolling out an herbicide-plus-GE-seed combination to try to stave off the pest. This ‘resistance and response’ dynamic is a unidirectional progression along an increasingly poisonous and unsustainable path.”

Response to resistance from the pesticide industry, as noted, often includes more drastic approaches: combining active ingredients (with poor regulatory control) into “new” products; developing new formulations (to which pests or weeds will also develop resistance in time); and/or increasing potency (and typically, toxicity) of a product. In addition, agro-chemical companies have engaged in all sorts of chicanery to convince growers, government, and the public that their products are safe and effective; tactics have included greenwashing, intensive lobbying, paying for “positive” research, discrediting critics, and more. (See Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of, for example, the “Monsanto Papers.”)

On an analogous front, Beyond Pesticides recently brought suit against Exxon Mobil Corporation for “false and deceptive marketing” that implies that the company invests heavily in the production and use of “clean energy” and “environmentally beneficial technology.” The truth is that “the vast majority of Exxon’s business continues to be in the production and use of petroleum, natural gas, and petrochemicals, including pesticides. These activities are significant contributors to the climate crisis and the decline of pollinators and biodiversity, threatening the viability of biological systems that sustain life.” The complaint adds, “In an age where consumers are looking to support responsible companies that are . . . transitioning away from fossil fuel-based energy and chemical products, ‘ExxonMobil is able to capture the growing market of consumers.’”

Beyond Pesticides considers this a monumental example of “deception via greenwashing” that underscores why “reducing” use of petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides is a fool’s errand: industry will do anything it can manage to convince everyone that their activities are not destroying the climate and environment. All of these factors underscore why piecemeal or “reductionist” approaches to agriculture and land management generally are doomed to fail or to deliver anemic results that do not address health, climate, biodiversity, and food systems issues at the level the problems require.

Executive Director Jay Feldman commented: “We cannot afford to be misled by corporations that are tinkering with solutions to the environmental crises of climate change and biodiversity devastation, which threaten our future over an ever-shortening time horizon. Overselling half-hearted attempts to solve these environmental crises head-on is doing dramatic damage to the large scale and meaningful changes that must take place now.”

Meaningful solutions must involve systemic changes to how land is managed and agricultural activities conducted. The dominant, conventional approaches to management (including integrated pest management, pesticide reduction programs, or product substitution strategies) continue to depend on synthetic inputs (pesticides and fertilizers, primarily) that attempt to treat symptoms of underlying problems. In these approaches, soil is considered to be little more than an “emptry matrix” into which inputs can be poured, plants grown and harvested, and the process of “rinse, repeat” continued each year. This is the antithesis of approaches that mimic and cooperate with natural systems. Regenerative, organic systems are based in an understanding of ecosystems, in which all parts must function well together for optimal results. Soil is respected and treated as a living ecosystem of components that, together, support and enhance biological life.

Successful organic agricultural practices — for the long term — support and enhance natural nutrient cycling with soil supplements such as compost. The focus is on building organic matter in soil and feeding the multitude of biological organisms in the soil — fungi, bacteria, et al. — that decompose organic matter into the nutrients that feed plants. Other management strategies, beyond “no use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides,” include: integrated animal and other composted fertilizers; crop rotation; low-till soil disturbance; cover crops; intercropping (because nature abhors monocrops, which are “free candy” to pest invasions); companion and succession planting; silvopasturing and targeted livestock grazing; more manual (rather than chemical) weed control; and others, as set out by USDA organic standards. In organic turf management, strategies might include aeration, overseeding, dethatching, compost applications, higher mowing height, among others. Organic methods are successfully and economically used in managing lawns, parks, and playing fields across the country.

Use of such techniques in agriculture, as is required under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 and USDA Organic Certification, yields increased plant resiliency, decreased pest issues, reduced water use, and elimination of toxic pesticide compounds in soil, air, water, and human food — all of which improve ecosystem functioning and human health. Critically, these techniques also address biodiversity and climate issues. Absent pesticide impacts, organisms and their ecosystems will be vastly healthier and able to provide important environmental services. Organic, regenerative approaches also help significantly to drawn down and store atmospheric carbon in the soil (where it benefits soil ecology and crops); this is sometimes called “carbon farming” because the impact is so compelling. To ensure these benefits, strong, clear standards for organic, regenerative production — and the Certified Organic label — are paramount.

Halfway measures will not achieve the imperative redress of our current and significant environmental and climate woes. As Beyond Pesticides does, the EU and EC should be pursuing the adoption of organic, regenerative land management systems, and working with farmers, consumers, landscapers, other advocates, and communities to expedite a transition to these systems. The benefits are substantial in addressing climate, health, food-system integrity, biodiversity, and a host of other problems caused by chemical approaches to our agroeconomies. Learn more about how to advocate for these changes in local communities here.

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

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/05/20/business/ap-eu-europe-agriculture.html