(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2020) Since the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sits at the nexus of complex and systemic problems that need urgent attention—pesticide-dependent genetically engineered crops, the integrity of certified organic agriculture, and the climate crisis—the choice of the agency’s head is critical to meeting the challenges necessary to sustaining life.

USDA has long been a big promoter of chemical-intensive agriculture. With President-elect Joe Biden committed to priorities of addressing health care, systemic racism, and climate change, the time is now for USDA to change the way it does business. We need an organic advocate in the Secretary of Agriculture, who must be committed to transitioning chemical-intensive agriculture to organic practices—thereby eliminating petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, sequestering atmospheric carbon, protecting farmworker and farmer health, delivering a safe food supply, and ensuring clean air, water, and healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Tell President-elect Biden to appoint an organic leader as USDA Secretary.

The purview of USDA is far-ranging—from SNAP (food stamps) to agricultural support programs to research to inspections and other regulations. And the National Organic Program. Research includes programs promoting pesticides and genetically engineered crops. USDA’s history with President-elect Biden’s priority issues has not been good historically. Promotion of chemical-intensive production hurts health as well as the environment and leads to increased climate change. Chemical-intensive agriculture is systemically racist—disproportionately exposing black, indigenous, and people of color to hazardous chemicals from their production through use and disposal, while food deserts in low income neighborhoods offer low quality processed food contaminated with chemical residues.

We need an organic leader at USDA—a catalyst who will promote healthy organic food for all, as well as agricultural production practices that prevent climate change and environmental degradation.

There are plenty of possibilities from which to choose:

• Public officials include organic farmers like Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana), and Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (D-Vermont). 
• State Agriculture commissioners Jim Hightower (Texas) and Kate Greenberg (D-Colorado). She worked on organic and regenerative farms and was a leader with the National Young Farmers Association.
• Organic and regenerative farmers who have worked at USDA, including Francis Thicke, PhD, who is an organic farmer and former National Organic Standards Board member and USDA National Program Leader for Soil Science, and Shirley Sherrod, who was the Georgia State Director of Rural Development.
• Organic and regenerative farmers and ranchers who, because of historic discrimination, have never been offered political appointments, but have proven themselves as leaders, include John Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Association, Karen Washington, co-founder of Black Urban Growers, and Winona LaDuke, founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project, to name just a few.

Tell President-elect Biden to appoint an organic leader as USDA Secretary.

Letter to President-elect Biden’s Agriculture Transition Team

I am writing to you because I am concerned that people—like former Senator Heidi Heitkamp—who have been suggested as the Secretary of Agriculture in the Biden administration will take us in the wrong direction and not meet the existential crises of the climate crisis and biodiversity devastation. We have a plethora of dedicated leaders to choose from who have exhibited a deep commitment to advancing organic agriculture—thereby eliminating petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, sequestering atmospheric carbon, protecting farmworker and farmer health, delivering a safe food supply, and ensuring clean air, water, and healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

The purview of USDA is far-ranging—from SNAP (food stamps) to agricultural support programs to research to inspections and other regulations. And the National Organic Program. Research includes programs promoting pesticides and genetically engineered crops. USDA’s history with the Biden priority issues has not been good in the past. Promotion of chemical-intensive production hurts health as well as the environment and leads to increased climate change. Chemical-intensive agriculture is systemically racist—disproportionately exposing black, indigenous, and people of color to hazardous chemicals from their production through use and disposal, while food deserts in low income neighborhoods offer low quality processed food contaminated with chemical residues.

We need an organic leader at USDA—a catalyst who will promote organic food for all, as well as production that prevents climate change and environmental degradation.

There are plenty of possibilities to choose from:

*Public officials include organic farmers like Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Lieutenant Governor David Zuckerman (D-Vermont).

*State Agriculture commissioners Jim Hightower (Texas) and Kate Greenberg (D-Colorado). She worked on organic and regenerative farms and was a leader with the National Young Farmers Association.

*Organic and regenerative farmers who have worked at USDA, including  Francis Thicke, PhD, who was USDA’s National Program Leader for Soil Science, and Shirley Sherrod, who was the Georgia State Director of Rural Development.

*Organic and regenerative farmers and ranchers who, because of historic discrimination, have never been offered political appointments, but have proven themselves as leaders, include John Boyd, founder of the National Black Farmers Association, Karen Washington, co-founder of Black Urban Growers, and Winona LaDuke, founder of the White Earth Land Recovery Project, to name just a few.

Please select an organic leader for Secretary of Agriculture, who must be committed to transitioning from chemical-intensive agriculture to organic practices—thereby eliminating petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, sequestering atmospheric carbon, protecting farmworker and farmer health, delivering a safe food supply, and ensuring clean air, water, and healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2020) The toxic herbicide dicamba is once again at the center of a larger story about states’ authority to regulate pesticides beyond federal dictates. The Trump EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has just made it much harder for state regulations to be more protective than federal rules are. It did so via a footnote embedded in dozens of pages of regulatory documents related to EPA’s registration of three new dicamba products. Given conservatives’ long-standing lip service to “states’ rights,” this EPA’s thwarting of the wishes of individual states to respond to their respective circumstances could easily be regarded as an odd — though, during this administration, hardly singular — stance. This latest development underscores EPA’s continuing failures to protect people and the environment, and the increasing tension between centralized, federal regulation and more-local regulation, whether by states or smaller localities.

For nearly 30 years, state regulators have used a Section 24 provision of FIFRA, the Federal, Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act — the law that gives EPA authority to regulate pesticides — to establish specific restrictions, on use of federally registered pesticide products, that go beyond what EPA has mandated. The agency has long allowed states to add to the edicts of federal pesticide labels in order to protect workers, crops, and/or the environment under particular local circumstances.

Section 24 harbors two subsections at issue, as Progressive Farmer notes: “Section 24(a) establishes that states have the right to regulate federal pesticides through state legislatures or rulemaking procedures, a time-consuming and often political process that can take years. Section 24(c) is more nimble. It grants states the right to issue ‘special local needs labels’ on an annual basis, to address local agricultural, environmental or public health needs by granting ‘additional uses’ to federal pesticide labels.” Historically, the 24(c) provision has been used extensively to expand pesticide uses allowed on product labels by federal registrations.

For several decades, EPA has construed 24(c) to mean that states can establish more-restrictive regulations than the federal. Indeed, in 1996, it published this as guidance for states. In the past few years, especially, as EPA has failed to enact constraints on the uses of dicamba, which has caused massive devastation to non-target crops and trees (as well as to wildlife), many states have moved to establish additional controls on the pesticide’s use.

Beyond Pesticides reported in 2019 that “A number of states, including Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, Illinois, and Arkansas, have instituted restrictions on [dicamba] use that surpass those accompanying the federal registration of the compound. Texas, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina are all eyeing 24(c) requests [for stricter-than-federal controls] for tighter application windows, additional training requirements, better record keeping, new fine structures for violations, and other modifications of the federal label.”

This new (and stealthily announced) EPA impediment to states’ ability to create additional constraints hinges on the agency’s decision to reinterpret what states can do under Section 24(c) of FIFRA. EPA confirmed that the subject footnote represents an official policy change, saying, “EPA has determined that moving forward, EPA may disapprove any state registrations under FIFRA section 24(c) that further restrict use of pesticides registered by EPA, regardless of the chemicals involved. If a state wishes to further restrict use of a pesticide, they must do so under section 24(a) of FIFRA.”

This change means that state regulators will now have to navigate state legislative or rulemaking processes per Section 24(a) in order to enact such protections — far less “nimble” approaches to often urgent, seasonal circumstances. In the case of dicamba, states have frequently chosen to control the timing, nature, location, or quantity of applications of the pesticide in efforts to diminish the damage it causes to non-target plants and organisms. In addition, this reversal by EPA overturns decades of precedent, and as Progressive Farmer reports, “breaks EPA’s past promises to the states and threatens to damage the longstanding cooperative relationship between federal and state regulators.”

Although EPA did foreshadow this change in March 2019, state regulators are feeling blindsided. Back then, EPA announced — during one wave of state additions to federal labels on dicamba — that it might alter its handling of states’ requests to enact stricter controls, claiming that the actual language of 24(c) allows states only to permit additional uses of a federally registered pesticide. EPA was apparently disturbed by the magnitude of use of 24(c) by states to restrict dicamba, particularly in the South and Midwest.

EPA said at the time, “Due to the fact that section 24(a) allows states to regulate the use of any federally registered pesticide, and the fact that some states have instead used 24(c) to implement cut-off dates (and/or impose other restrictions), EPA is now re-evaluating its approach to reviewing 24(c) requests and the circumstances under which it will exercise its authority to disapprove those requests.” State regulators reacted to this announcement with great concern: officials from 10 different states urged EPA not to adopt the policy change, as did the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO).

Here’s where the blindsiding arises: EPA Office of Pesticide Programs director Rick Keigwin said, alongside the 2019 announcement, that no changes would be made to the agency’s 24(c) interpretation without the input of state regulators. “Before adopting any changes in this regard, we will solicit public comment on our proposed new approaches,” he wrote in the spring and summer of 2019. “We look forward to a robust public dialogue with our stakeholders, partners and co-regulators on this matter.”

But that did not happen, state regulators report. “There was no public comment period, no consultation,” said Leo Reed, an Indiana pesticide regulator and president of AAPCO. Rose Kachadoorian, a pesticide regulator from Oregon (where many 24(c) registrations have occurred) said, “We are co-regulators with EPA, and we believe we have a good relationship with EPA. But this doesn’t feel like a co-regulator relationship. A change in the agency’s interpretation of a law should go through a public process, especially when it deviates from a longstanding practice that EPA has said was fine in [its written guidance].” She also notes that state regulators are frustrated because it seems that EPA is changing its 24(c) policy in order to address its annoyance over state action on one pesticide, dicamba, “potentially at the expense of countless other pesticides that require state-specific restrictive 24(c) labels.”

The existing guidance on 24(c) remains on the EPA website, creating confusion and a “legal limbo” for state regulators. Brook Duer, a staff attorney at Penn State’s Center for Agricultural and Shale Law, opined that even if the literal text of 24(c) comports with EPA’s new interpretation, the decades-old, published interpretation and guidance represent a “binding norm” under federal administrative law. He commented: “So unilaterally reversing it through a footnote, without a more transparent and public process — like what EPA previously represented would be undertaken — is certainly unorthodox and may even create the basis for litigation to prevent the reversal.”

Further, Mr. Duer said, “This is still totally up in the air. There’s no guidance on what happens to restrictive 24(c) labels that are in effect right now — is this a blanket invalidation of them all?” He expects that states may have a hard time getting the clarity they need from any court, in large part because states do not have the budgetary resources to press the matter legally, given both generally declining resources during the pandemic and the significant resource drain that dealing with dicamba has been — even as those states see another season of dicamba use coming in 2021.

These tussles over who can regulate pesticide use beyond federal registration rules, and in what circumstances, happen not only at the federal–state juncture. Many U.S. localities, such as counties and municipalities (often supported by the advocacy of community and nonprofit groups), have sought to act more protectively on pesticide use for their jurisdictions — and often found it tough going.

Typically, a locality will establish stricter regulations, and nearly inevitably, preemption — the ability of a “higher” level of government to override laws or regulations of a lower level, sometimes promoted by industry interests — takes center stage as feds preempt state efforts, or states preempt those of counties or municipalities. An example of the latter was covered by Beyond Pesticides from 2017–2019, when an initiative in Lincoln County, Oregon to ban aerial pesticide spraying had initial success, but was ultimately struck down by a court, citing state preemption.     

Beyond Pesticides noted in its coverage of that 2019 EPA announcement on 24(c) that, “[The] issue of preemption of localities’ desires to protect their populations and environment has become an increasingly dynamic frontier at the nexus of pesticide use, health, and environment.” Localities generally face an uphill slog in trying to protect their residents, lands, and resources from the assaults of pesticides, GMOs (genetically modified organisms), factory farms, fracking sites, or a host of other ills that communities may find objectionable because of health, safety, and/or environmental concerns.

Beyond Pesticides has previously provided “explainers” on how preemption operates, and the source of some of the conflict about preemption at the state–local nexus. Salient excerpts are offered here.

On the origin of pre-emption, from a 2017 Daily News Blog article: “The tension between states’ preemptive authority, and the emerging insistence on greater local control to protect its residents, goes to the very heart of not only how governments at state and local levels derive their authority in a democratic system, but also, how that authority is shared — or not. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) clearly establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. At the state level, things can become a bit less clear. Each state has its own Constitution, of course, its own interpretive history of the document, and its own assignations of authority regarding the host of issues with which governments concern themselves.”

Then, from a 2019 Daily News Blog entry: “In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, that the federal law known as FIFRA — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act — which regulates pesticide distribution, sale, and use, does not preempt local jurisdictions from creating more-stringent pesticide regulation. Thus, it was ruled that FIFRA nowhere expressly supersedes local regulation. However, and critically, the court left intact the ability of states to preempt such regulations. The essential argument of localities, and of Beyond Pesticides in the many cases in which it has participated, is that state preemption laws effectively deny local residents and decision makers their democratic right to better protection when a community decides that minimum standards set by state and federal law are insufficient.

“This tussle between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ levels of government re: which [can] claim authority to regulate factors in public health and safety, which has played out across communities in the U.S., goes to some of the fundamental principles on which the American democratic experiment is based. In 2012, Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman wrote, ‘This is a very interesting story in American democracy. How did we get to this point in the history of the [U.S.] that we have taken away the local police powers of our local jurisdictions to protect the local public health of our people? This challenges a basic tenet that this country is based on — local governance.’”

Even in this challenging context, some localities have succeeded in passing and enacting ordinances that restrict pesticide use more stringently than federal and state regulations would. In 2013, Takoma Park, Maryland was the first in the nation to restrict the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides on both private and public property within the city.

More recently, Montgomery County, Maryland has successfully adopted its Healthy Lawns Act, which restricts toxic pesticide use on public and private property; the City of Gaithersburg has recently opted in to that law. Prince George’s County (also in Maryland) and Baltimore are considering similar ordinances. The pesticide industry spent years challenging Montgomery County’s law; after numerous court proceedings, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted the county the authority to restrict pesticides on all property, public and private, within its jurisdiction. With the court case settled, communities in the state that had long wanted to rein in use of toxic pesticides that degrade residents’ and environmental health can now do so.

In addition, both Portland and South Portland, Maine have successfully established stricter-than-state regulations on pesticide use. Both municipalities have banned toxic pesticide use on public and private property. None of these local initiatives passed (and survived legal challenges) without very hard work and well-run education and advocacy campaigns. But localities can adopt protective ordinances governing the use of pesticides, and even in states that are more problematic, may be able to do so at least for public lands.

Beyond Pesticides has long asserted the rights of local governments to protect public health and the environment, especially when federal and state governments fail to enact adequate protections. Localities across the country continue the work to pass statutes that would better safeguard residents and resources.  Organized people — at local and state levels — can act, whether on dicamba on agricultural fields or glyphosate in public parks, to protect their communities. Learn more about how with Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet on preemption, its Lawn and Landscape Tools for Change, its webpage of Organizational Resources, and the Beyond Pesticides and Organic Consumers Association map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies.

Source: https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2020/11/06/epa-throws-roadblock-state-dicamba

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2020) A new report from the University of Milan and Poison Control Center (CVA) in Milan, Italy suggests that domestic animals experience frequent environmental poisoning by household toxicants. This research highlights the significance of investigating methods to classify diseases shared across multiple species to reduce the adverse effects of toxicant exposure. Researchers note, “These findings can provide useful information for the identification and monitoring of known and emerging toxicants, with positive repercussions on human, animal, and environmental health.”

Veterinary toxicologists collaborated with the Poison Control Centre of Milan to analyze data related to animal poisoning episodes from January 2017 to March 2019. Evaluated data includes comprehensive information about animal species, potential poisoning agents, route of exposure, and clinical signs. Toxic chemicals (toxicants) considered include pesticides (insecticides, rodenticides, molluscicides, herbicides, and fungicides), drugs/medication (human and veterinary medicinal products, tobacco/nicotine, and drugs of abuse), household products (i.e., detergent, disinfectants), and other causative compounds. To analyze data results, researchers used IBM® SPSS® Statistics software and graphed findings using Prism by GraphPad.

Researchers reported 442 animal poisoning episodes. Pesticides and medicine are the two major causes of domestic animal poisoning (34.1% and 33.5% of incidents, respectively). The remainder of animal poising incidents are from household products and other causative agents. The number one cause of pesticide-related poising events is insecticides (44.6%)—including pyrethrin/pyrethroids and neonicotinoids, followed by rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, molluscicides, and unspecified pesticides. The leading cause of medicine-related poisoning is veterinary prescriptions. Species observations demonstrate that dogs and cats are most frequently associated with animal poisoning incidents. The most common exposure route is ingestion, preceding dermal and mucosal exposure (via inhalation). Nearly all animal exposures incidents are accidental (93%), however, some incidents occur due to owner errors/misuses, intentional poising, or unknown sources.

Individuals often use toxic chemicals without realizing the harm that they can cause to themselves and their pets. Pets are of specific concern, as their behavior patterns make them more likely to encounter harmful chemicals and their smaller bodies increase susceptibility to chemical effects. Furthermore, pets can develop diseases comparable to human illnesses from susceptibility to the same environmental contaminants, but at a quicker pace. This is because pets share a combination of gene functions and pathophysiological (biological processes associated with disease or injury) similar to humans. Animals, therefore, can act as viable biological sentinel species (bioindicators) to determine and assess the impact (especially chronic) of environmental pollutants on human health.

Clinal results from this research reveal similar effects on domesticated animals, as that exposure to these chemicals causes gastrointestinal issues such as vomiting, neurological problems like convulsions/tremors and ataxia, heart problems like slow or rapid heart rate, and irregular heartbeat, and sometimes mortality. Cats are highly sensitive to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides, triggering seizures, tremors, muscle spasms that can lead to death. This study does not explicitly consider cumulative pesticide exposure incidents from household products and veterinary medicine, which could compound health effects.

The use of chemical pesticides must not exacerbate the risk to both animals and humans in the process of avoiding or controlling bacteria, viruses, and other biological pests. Furthermore, we must have a full knowledge of chemicals we are commonly exposed to in our environment, especially as agencies fail to accurately assess the cause of pesticide-induced diseases of these environmental contaminants. Harms ultimately associated with contaminant exposure should end through policy reform and the adoption of safer practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use. With far too many human and animal diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, replacing pesticides with organic, non-toxic alternatives is crucial for safeguarding public health, particularly organisms vulnerable to pesticide toxicity. See Beyond Pesticide’s pets page to learn more about pesticide impacts on pet health, including how to how to protect your pet from pesticides and the least-toxic controls for flea and tick infestation. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a comprehensive resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated rates of diabetes, cancer, as well as other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides.

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

Source(s): University of Milan/CVA

(Beyond Pesticides, November 11, 2020) Neonicotinoid insecticides inhibit honey bee sleep cycles, leading to stress and population declines, according to research from Vanderbilt University, published in Scientific Reports. Although there is already ample evidence of the dangers these systemic insecticides pose to pollinators – as evidenced by recent bans in the European Union and Canada – this new line of investigation add further detail to the ongoing crisis in the pollinator world. “I was thinking about honey bee disappearances and it clicked—if pesticides are killing bees indirectly but we don’t know exactly how, maybe it’s because they’re getting physically lost,” said study coauthor Michael Tackenberg, PhD. 

Scientists conducted the experiment using honey bees located on Vanderbilt’s campus, which does not use neonicotinoid insecticides. After returning from pollen collection, forager bees were captured at their hive entrance and moved into monitoring tubes, which were subsequently transferred to the lab. In the lab, scientists were able to control light and dark cycles, and exposed bees to levels neonicotinoids they would likely experience if foraging on contaminated flowers.

Foraging bees were first exposed to light/dark at 12/12 cycles, followed by four days of complete darkness, at which time some bees were provided neonics, and others were not. Only 12% of control bees that did not feed on contaminated nectar displayed disrupted sleep cycles, while over 40% of exposed pollinators were adversely affected.

“Graphically, normal circadian rhythms look like steady waves,” said Giannoni-Guzmán, PhD, the paper’s co-first author. “When we observed bees that consumed neonicotinoids over several days, we saw a loss of waves, movement at random times or signs of barely any sleep at all.” Exposed pollinators increased their activity later into the night, although did not display an overall increase in activity.

Researchers were surprised to see that exposing the foragers to consistent darkness, without a light/dark cycle first, appeared to blunt the adverse effects of exposure. This tipped researchers off to the concept that light was playing a key rule in the interplay between neonicotinoids and sleep disruption. Consistent exposure to light disrupted the sleep cycle for 28% of pollinators; when the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam was introduced, a much larger proportion, 46% of bees, were disrupted. In contrast, exposure to the same levels in consistent darkness had no significant effects.

“We have seen how neonicotinoids disrupt honey bees’ biological clocks so that many no longer have regular sleep-wake rhythms,” said study co-author Doug McMahon, PhD. “The bees that do have irregular sleep-wake rhythms are sleep deprived and skewed in their alignment in time and environment.”

Disruption of the circadian clock has far-reaching implications on complex social insects like the honey bee. Many are familiar with the evidence that neonicotinoids disrupt navigation, foraging, memory and learning in exposed bees. Circadian rhythms and sleep patterns support those critical functions. Sleep deprived honey bees are thus more likely to have difficulty returning home after foraging, and remembering or communicating through waggle dance the location of pollen and nectar.

“Beyond sleep disruption, we know that honey bees rely on their internal sense of time and the position of the sun,” said Dr. Tackenberg. “If they have an incorrect sense of time their ability to effectively navigate is hindered. It stands to reason that if a bee’s internal sense of time is disrupted or altered it could affect learning, memory and foraging efficiency—even outside of reduced capacity from sleep disruptions.”

The mechanistic process discovered by researchers has the potential to explain why many beekeepers experience a dwindling or collapsing hive without evidence of other stressors. Foragers that get into a plot of neonicotinoid-contaminated pollen may be cognizant enough at initial stages to communicate the location of this food source to other bees. But over the next several days, more and more bees are likely to become lost on their way home, or worse, reach the hive and potentially undermine the health of the entire colony.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act would provide pollinators with a real chance to recover from the stressors of pesticide exposure. The bill would eliminate neonicotinoids, other toxic systemics waiting in the wing with the chemical industry, and establish a board of experts to protect pollinator health into the future. Take action today by urging your member of Congress to support this important legislation. You can also get active in your state. Massachusetts residents are encouraged to lend their support to the state’s proposed Pollinator Protect Act, which would eliminate the most toxic neonicotinoids from consumer use. You can also get active in your local community by passing laws that protect pollinator from neonicotinoids and other highly toxic pesticides. If you’re ready to protect pollinators, let us know today that you’ll fight for a pesticide-free community.

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

Source: Vanderbilt University (press release), Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, November 10, 2020) Higher rates of plant diversity can limit pest pressure and reduce the need for pesticide use, finds a new study published by the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research. With rampant declines in insect biodiversity from the ongoing insect apocalypse, it is critical that farmers and ecologists better understand the natural interplay between plants and insects, and the important ecosystem services that flow from these interactions. “Our experiments show that conserving plant diversity provides multiple benefits for controlling herbivore pests, which could play a key role in reducing inputs of agrochemicals and enhancing plant productivity,” said study coauthor Andrew Barnes, PhD.

Scientists investigated the importance of plant biodiversity through study of two ongoing biodiversity experiments. One known as the The Jena Experiment, based in Central Europe, and another, the Cedar Creek Biodiversity Experiment, in the state of Minnesota. Both sites established blocks of plant diversity gradients, flowing from monoculture plots to those with 16 species or more. Researchers aimed to investigate how insect food webs and feeding behavior, plant biomass, and pest predator response changes as a function of plant biodiversity.

Results showed that higher plant diversity resulted in an insect (herbivore pest) feeding rate that was 44% lower than that found in areas containing a monoculture of only one plant species. Thus, greater rates of plant diversity may be expected to produce higher yields, on balance, than monoculture fields when pest pressure is taken into account.  “That ultimately means that where multiple species are planted together, this will yield more plant biomass per square meter, and each individual plant in diverse mixtures will receive lower damage from herbivores,” Dr. Barnes indicates.

Two reasons for this phenomenon are found in the study. First, with higher plant diversity, it is more difficult for herbivore pests to find their preferred food source. Second, insect predators (such as beetles, spiders, and wasps) in high plant diversity plots receive 162% greater energy flux (a calculation of where biomass/energy is flowing in a food web), increasing rates of pest predation. As Dr. Barnes explains, “In other words, more diverse plant communities pose a double-edged problem for herbivores—that is, more predators and less preferred food—that could help to naturally reduce herbivore impacts.”

Along the same line as the present study, research published in late October finds that natural areas around farmland could reduce the need for insecticide use. Pest outbreaks were significantly larger – by 4x – in farms surrounded by simplified landscapes, compared to those surrounded by semi-natural habitat.

The study has important implications for chemical-based, monoculture farming systems. “Although significant advances have been made in understanding natural processes and their importance to agriculture, large corporations and their executives continue to do whatever they can to keep the world tied to an outdated, industrial approach that creates huge profits at the expense of natural ecosystem services,” said Drew Toher, Beyond Pesticides community resource and policy director.

Nico Eisenhauer, PhD, lead author of the research, underlines the importance of taking these results and putting them into action. “Ultimately, this study demonstrates that supporting biodiversity can leverage the sustainable management of ecosystems and the benefits to people,” he says. While rows and rows of monoculture crops make farm work seem easy, neat and tidy, at closer look it creates a system—more prone to pest outbreaks, chemical resistance, non-target drift and contamination—that is dangerously fragile, and out of balance with the natural environment.

Organic agriculture provides an offramp away from the monoculture, industrial chemical-based farming system plaguing the globe and its inhabitants.  While it is by no means perfect, and still in need of continued strengthening, organic standards require farmers consider the natural environment, and work to foster healthier, more ecologically friendly on-farm conditions. Help promote a safer farming system for people, wildlife and the environment by purchasing organic whenever possible. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides webpage on organic production.

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

Source: Science Advances, PhysOrg (press release)

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2020) Now that we have learned what a pandemic looks and feels like, with the astounding levels of infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19, we must take serious steps to prevent another pandemic on the horizon—this one tied to bacterial resistance to antibiotics. An important article in The Lancet points to a “looming potential pandemic” resulting from a “rise in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections that are undetected, underdiagnosed, and increasingly untreatable, [which] threatens the health of people in the USA and globally.”

Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators it is urgent that the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria be initiated.

Two contributors to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) that are being highlighted are in agriculture and use of antibiotics in medicine when not warranted.

The misuse of antibiotics in agriculture includes antibiotics used to control certain bacterial diseases in plant agriculture (especially oxytetracycline and streptomycin). While crop uses are important contributors to breeding bacterial resistance, they are small compared to their uses in livestock production. Antibiotics are used largely as additives to animal feed to ward off any potential infections and to promote unnaturally rapid growth (the latter of which translates to higher profits), rather than being used to treat bacterial infections (although that does happen and products from treated animals can go to market with residues). Both of these objectives compensate for the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which scientists believe are contributing to the next pandemic. Use of antibiotics is prohibited in all certified organic production. Although the standards of the National Organic Program require that sick animals be treated, meat and other products from such animals cannot be sold with the imprimatur of the Certified Organic designation.

Another leading cause of AMR is the unnecessary use of antibiotics in human medicine. Antibiotics may be given prophylactically to prevent infection or during the course of a viral infection, which cannot be cured with antibiotics. A study from summer 2020 shows that a shocking 72% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics even when they were not clinically indicated. The authors note: “AMR might worsen under COVID-19 due to the overuse of antibiotics in humans, continuing misuse in agriculture, and the dearth of antimicrobials in the development pipeline.”

The co-authors of The Lancet articles also discuss how the AMR phenomenon that underlies this rise can exacerbate COVID-19 risks. They observe that, across five countries, COVID-19 diagnoses are associated with bacterial infections (with 3.5% diagnosed concurrently and 14.3% post-COVID-19). The prevalence is higher in patients who require intensive care. 

In 2015, the White House released a comprehensive action plan to curtail antibiotic misuse and accelerate new antimicrobials and vaccines—the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Implementation has been uneven and, at times, contradictory. In 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, but the same year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rejected the World Health Organization’s  guidance to limit antibiotic use in livestock feed. There have been unprecedented nationwide budget cuts to hospital-based AMR programs. Ignoring the looming pandemic, in 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved an expansion of medically important antibiotics such as streptomycin and oxytetracycline as pesticides to increase crop yields, and the USDA removed federal oversight of meat inspection at pork processing plants.

Failing to confront AMR undermines decades of advances in medicine and public health. The COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a wake-up call that progress on the national action plan is critical for public health.

Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators it is urgent that the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria be initiated.

Letter to Congress

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

Two contributors to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) that are being highlighted are in agriculture and use of antibiotics in medicine when not warranted.

The misuse of antibiotics in agriculture includes antibiotics used to control certain bacterial diseases in plant agriculture (especially oxytetracycline and streptomycin). While crop uses are important contributors to breeding bacterial resistance, they are small compared to their uses in livestock production. Antibiotics are used largely as additives to animal feed to ward off any potential infections and to promote unnaturally rapid growth, rather than being used to treat bacterial infections (although that does happen and products from treated animals can go to market with residues). Both of these objectives compensate for the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which scientists believe are contributing to the next pandemic.

Another leading cause of AMR is the unnecessary use of antibiotics in human medicine. Antibiotics may be given prophylactically to prevent infection or during the course of a viral infection, which cannot be cured with antibiotics. A study from summer 2020 shows that a shocking 72% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics even when they were not clinically indicated. The authors note: “AMR might worsen under COVID-19 due to the overuse of antibiotics in humans, continuing misuse in agriculture, and the dearth of antimicrobials in the development pipeline.”

The co-authors of The Lancet articles also discuss how the AMR phenomenon that underlies this rise can exacerbate COVID-19 risks. They observe that, across five countries, COVID-19 diagnoses are associated with bacterial infections (with 3.5% diagnosed concurrently and 14.3% post-COVID-19). The prevalence is higher in patients who require intensive care.

In 2015, the White House released a comprehensive action plan to curtail antibiotic misuse and accelerate new antimicrobials and vaccines—the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. Implementation has been uneven and, at times, contradictory. In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration banned use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, but the same year, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) rejected WHO’s guidance to limit antibiotic use in livestock feed. There have been unprecedented nationwide budget cuts to hospital-based AMR programs. In 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved expansion of medically important antibiotics such as streptomycin and oxytetracycline as pesticides to increase crop yields, and the USDA removed federal oversight of meat inspection at pork processing plants.

Failing to confront AMR undermines decades of advances in medicine and public health. The COVID-19 pandemic should serve as a wake-up call that progress on the national action plan is critical for public health.

Please encourage federal agencies, including EPA, USDA, and FDA, to take urgent action to implement the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2020) Beyond Pesticides joined health and environmental groups suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) late last month over its decision to reapprove the endocrine disrupting herbicide atrazine with fewer protections for children’s health. Despite the chemical being banned across much of the world, EPA continues to make decisions that benefit chemical industry executives. “EPA’s failure to remove atrazine represents a dramatic failure of a federal agency charged with safeguarding the health of people, wildlife, and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “We seek to uphold the agency’s duty to act on the science, in the face of viable alternatives to this highly toxic weedkiller.”

It is not hyperbole, but in fact scientifically documented, that atrazine exposure “chemically castrates” frogs, impairs fish reproduction, and can result in birth defects and cancer in humans. EPA decision comes on the heels of a rash of industry-friendly decisions. Within the last month, the agency has finalized rules weakening farmworker buffer zone protections, reapproving dicamba use on genetically engineered crops, and reregistering some of the most toxic pesticides on the market.

The lawsuit, filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, contends that before reapproving atrazine, the EPA failed in its legal duty to ensure that the pesticide would not cause unreasonable harm to public health and the environment. The recent atrazine reapproval eliminated longstanding safeguards for children’s health, allowed 50% more atrazine to end up in U.S. waterways, and perpetuated dangerously high risks to farmworkers and their families.

According to research published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, banning atrazine would provide an economic benefit to farmers. “The winners,” the authors  conclude, “in an atrazine free future would include farm worker, farmers and their families, and others who are exposed to atrazine either directly from field uses or indirectly from contaminated tap water along with natural ecosystem that are currently damaged by atrazine.” Numerous other countries, including the European Union as far back as 2004, have banned atrazine and eliminated use without any damage to the farming economy. Yet EPA’s allowance means atrazine is likely to continue being the second-most used pesticide in the United States, with roughly 70 million pounds used each year in agriculture.

“If EPA were actually doing its job, this chemical would have been off the market years ago,” said Kristin Schafer, executive director of Pesticide Action Network, which is also part of the lawsuit. “The science on atrazine’s harms is so clear that it’s been banned in Europe for more than a decade, yet here in this country EPA is now loosening use restrictions—once again putting corporate interests over public health or the environment.”

The lawsuit also challenges the EPA’s reapprovals of two other pesticides in the triazine class, propazine and simazine, which were part of the same review process as atrazine.

In allowing the continued use of atrazine, the EPA discarded safety precautions mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act that were put in place decades ago to limit young children’s exposure to the pesticide. In doing so, the agency ignored multiple independent epidemiological studies finding that developing embryos and young children are at high risk from atrazine. These findings are supported by animal studies, which likewise demonstrate adverse birth outcomes and reproductive effects.

In assessing atrazine, the EPA also reduced the protection factor it uses to convert toxicity levels observed in rat and mouse studies to levels considered safe for humans. The more permissive benchmark relies solely on a model developed by the primary manufacturer of atrazine, Syngenta.

Had the safety standards been based on independent science, atrazine uses on lawns and turf would likely have been cancelled due to unacceptable harms to children. The approval only mandated a modest reduction in the application rate for turf.

Additionally, the EPA dismissed extensive evidence showing that personal protection equipment intended to reduce farmworkers’ exposure to atrazine is ineffective and infeasible, thus putting the health of this highly exposed group at risk.

“Rather than doing its job of protecting human health and the environment, EPA heeded to political expediency and rushed to reapprove this toxic pesticide. We are in court to make sure EPA answers for its blatant disregard of the lives of our nation’s farmworkers and their children,” said Sylvia Wu, senior attorney at Center for Food Safety, who is representing the petitioners in the lawsuit.

Over 4,000 individuals signed on to Beyond Pesticides’ petition urging EPA to ban atrazine. While we take to the courts to correct the agency’s failure to protect the public, we encourage these advocates to keep up the pressure work to restrict use at the state and local level. But don’t limit your advocacy to one class of chemical – promote organic farming and land care, which eliminates toxic herbicides as well as all other hazardous pesticides that hurt out health.

For more information on the specific dangers of atrazine poses to our health and the environment, watch the keynote presentation from Tyrone Hayes, PhD, professor at University California, Berkeley, at the 33rd National Pesticide Forum in Irvine, CA. Dr. Hayes one of the world’s foremost experts on atrazine, has been the subject of incessant attacks by the chemical’s manufacturer, Syngenta-Chemchina.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety press release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2020) Research at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) finds that pesticide exposure increases the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD), regardless of whether disease onset is idiopathic (spontaneous) or genetic (GBA genetic risk variant). Although the exact etiology of PD remains unknown, epidemiological and toxicological research repeatedly identifies exposure to pesticides, as well as specific gene-pesticide interactions, as significant adverse risk factors that contribute to PD. Furthermore, this study, “Gene Variants May Affect PD Risk After Pesticide Exposure,” suggests that environmental triggers like occupational exposure to pesticides can prompt PD in individuals with or without the genetic precursor.

This research demonstrates the importance of assessing disease etiology concerning occupational pesticide exposure, especially if disease triggers are overwhelmingly non-hereditary. Since not all individuals genetically predisposed to the disease develop PD, with only 10 to 15 percent of PD cases being genetic, government officials need to consider alternate etiological pathways that include environmental risk factors. Study researchers note, “‘Environmental exposures may have differential effects in different genotypes’ and may predispose people with PD to different symptom burden.” 

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease, with at least one million Americans living with PD and about 50,000 new diagnoses each year. The disease affects 50% more men than women and people with PD have a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control and trembling, anxiety and depression, constipation and urinary difficulties, dementia, and sleep disturbances. Over time, symptoms intensify, but there is no current cure for this fatal disease. While only a small percentage of PD incidences are genetic and PD is quickly becoming “the world’s fastest-growing brain disease,” research like this is vital for examining other potential risk factors for developing Parkinson’s disease.

Researchers at UCSF, who presented this study at the Movement Disorder Society 23rd International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders (Virtual) 2020,  assessed two groups of patients—those with and without a PD diagnosis. The authors analyzed individuals based on two cohort studies, the Parkinson’s Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI)–a longitudinal study of people with PD, including genetic subtypes—and Fox Insight (FI), where participants self-report PD symptoms online. PPMI assessments were in-person and thoroughly evaluated motor and nonmotor function, comparing patients who developed PD idiopathically with healthy individuals. The study further compared patients with PD who are carriers of the two most common gene-specific mutations (i.e., LRRK2 G2019S mutation, GBA mutations) with carriers of each mutation who did not have PD. Researchers collected responses from the FI report to assess the pesticide exposure frequency among PD-diagnosed and non-diagnosed participants, ages 57 to 66 years.

Lastly, researchers assessed individuals with and without PD in both the PPMI and FI cohort to determine a correlation between pesticide exposure and cognitive impairment. Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and research-based characterization of cognitive impairment, researchers investigated symptoms among individuals in the PPMI. Researchers further assessed functional and subjective cognitive impairment for the FI cohort using various measurements: Non-Motor Symptom Questionnaire (NMSQ), cognitive-medication intake, and the Penn Parkinson’s Daily Activity Questionnaire (PDAQ). 

Overall, the report finds that occupational pesticide exposure presents a significant risk for idiopathic and GBA mutation-mediated PD. For individuals in the PPMI cohort study, pesticide exposure increases the risk of idiopathic PD 3.9-fold, in comparison with a healthy individual. Likewise, pesticide exposure significantly increases the risk for PD among individuals with a GBA mutation 4.2-fold. Participants in the FI cohort study demonstrate a moderate association between pesticide exposure and risk for PD, with hazard increasing 1.5-fold. Although pesticide exposure has little to no effect on carriers of the LRRK2 G2019S mutation the development of PD, the authors suggest that the impact of the LLRK2 gene is strong enough that environmental exposures play less of a role in disease nutrition. Lastly, pesticide exposure impacts cognitive ability as both study cohorts demonstrate a mild cogitative impairment, with pesticide-exposed participants reporting more cognitive impairment symptoms and remediation use.

Parkinson’s Disease occurs when there is damage to the dopaminergic nerve cells (i.e., those activated by or sensitive to dopamine) in the brain responsible for dopamine production, one of the primary neurotransmitters mediating motor function. Although the cause of dopaminergic cell damage remains unknown, evidence suggests that pesticide exposure, especially chronic exposure, may be the culprit. Pesticide use is ubiquitous, especially in the rural U.S., where pesticide exposure is nearly unavoidable due to drift and runoff. Moreover, occupational exposure poses a unique risk, as pesticide exposure is direct via handling and application. A 2017 study finds that occupational use of pesticides (i.e., fungicides, herbicides, or insecticides) increases the risk for PD by 110 to 211 percent. Carbamate pesticides increase PD risk by 455 percent, with pesticide use for ten years or more doubling PD risk. Even more concerning is that some personal protection equipment (PPE) may not adequately protect workers from chemical exposure during application.

Nonoccupational (residential) pesticide exposure, such as proximity to pesticide-treated areas, presents a risk for PD development. A Louisiana State University study finds that residents living adjacent to a pesticide-treated pasture and forest from the agriculture and timber industry, respectively, have higher rates of PD incidence. Furthermore, pesticide residue in waterways and on produce present an alternate route for residential pesticide exposure to increase the risk for PD via ingestion. Pesticide contamination in waterways is historically commonplace and widespread in U.S. rivers and streams, with over almost 90 percent of water samples containing at least five or more different pesticides. These pesticides further contaminate groundwater and drinking water sources. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds detectable levels of pesticide residue on 57.5 percent of product samples in the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) analysis. Although the residue levels are within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s tolerances, the assertion that any level of pesticide within EPA tolerances in the U.S. food supply does not pose safety concerns has been challenged by numerous independent scientific studies. Pesticide exposure can cause severe health problems even at low residue levels, including endocrine disruption, cancers, reproductive dysfunction, respiratory problems (e.g., asthma, bronchitis), neurological impacts (e.g., developmental effects and Parkinson’s), among others. Nevertheless, both direct occupational and indirect nonoccupational exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of PD. 

Several studies identify various pesticides as involved in the pathology of PD, including the insecticides rotenone and chlorpyrifos, and herbicides 2,4-D, glyphosate, and paraquat. A Washington State University study determined that residents living near areas treated with glyphosate—the most widely used herbicides in the U.S.—are one-third more likely to die prematurely from Parkinson’s disease. In the Louisiana State University study, exposure to 2,4-D, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat from pasture land, forestry, or woodland operations, as prominent risk factors for PD, with the highest risk in areas where chemicals quickly percolate into drinking water sources. Overall, research finds exposure to pesticides increases the risk of developing PD from 33 percent to 80 percent, with some pesticides prompting a higher risk than others.

One of the most notorious pesticides associated with PD development are rotenone and paraquat, as PD pathology indicates the involvement of these two chemicals. Scientific literature comprehensively documents the neurotoxicant properties of paraquat and rotenone as laboratory experiments reproduce features of Parkinson’s in the brain of animals. Another study finds a 2.5-fold increase in PD risk among users of each chemical in comparison to non-users. Acute and chronic exposure to rotenone can inhibit the mitochondrial brain function responsible for cell regeneration and induce oxidative stress. Paraquat exposure can increase the production of specific proteins in the brain that damage cells producing dopamine, causing motor problems and muscle tremors. Although many countries, including Europe and Canada, ban the use of both chemicals due to concerns about links to Parkinson’s, the U.S. merely restricts use. In the U.S., although EPA permits the use of rotenone to kill invasive fish species, the agency only restricts paraquat application to certified applicators, allowing chemical-use to rise over the decade, with 2018 seeing a 100 percent increase in paraquat use in wildlife refuges. Considering research demonstrates that a multitude of pesticides presenting a risk of developing PD belong to various pesticide classes and have a differing mode of action, advocates say that government officials must evaluate all health effects related to chemical exposure equally regardless of chemical composition.

Parkinson’s disease has a multitude of epidemiologic research demonstrating several risk factors, including specific genetic mutations and external/environmental triggers (i.e., pesticide use, pollutant exposure, etc.). This research adds to the many that associate pesticide exposure with PD. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that PD can develop regardless of whether an individual is a carrier of GBA gene mutation or not.

This study is not the first to demonstrate a relationship between pesticide exposure and gene variation as a 2010 study finds individuals with specific gene variants (i.e., GBA mutation) are three and a half times more likely to develop Parkinson’s than those with the more common version of the gene. Furthermore, a 2013 study reveals that individuals with a PD-associated genetic mutation are more likely to develop the neurodegenerative disease upon exposure to pesticides. Ray Dorsey, M.D., professor of neurology at the University of Rochester, supports these UCSF finding, noting that the proposed risk of dying from PD is about 1 in 15 in comparison to the risk of dying in a car accident, about 1 in 100. Dr. Dorsey questions, “What are we doing to prevent ourselves from developing Parkinson’s disease? …[Scientists have] been telling us for decades that certain pesticides are linked and are contributing to Parkinson’s disease. We should listen.” Dr. Dorsey suggests using safer alternatives like organic practices. 

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 on occupational and nonoccupational pesticide exposure, especially in agriculture. Parkinson’s Disease may have no cure, but proper prevention practices like organics can eliminate exposure to toxic PD-inducing pesticides. Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate the use of toxic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to embrace regenerative, organic practices. A compliment 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. Furthermore, see Beyond Pesticides’ Parkinson’s Disease article from the Spring 2008 issue of Pesticides and You.

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

Source: Medscape/UCSF

(Beyond Pesticides, November 4, 2020) Despite a recent court ruling voiding the registration of drift-prone dicamba herbicides on genetically engineered (GE) cotton and soybeans, EPA has renewed  the registration of these chemicals. The court’s ruling stated that EPA, “substantially understated risks that it acknowledged and failed entirely to acknowledge other risks,” in regards to the herbicides XtendiMax and Eugenia (dicamba), produced by agrichemical corporations Bayer and BASF for their genetically engineered (GE) crops. In announcing the decision, Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency made its decision “[a]fter reviewing substantial amounts of new information, conducting scientific assessments based on the best available science, and carefully considering input from stakeholders.” Yet, it is evident that the most important stakeholders for EPA continues to be chemical corporations.

The history of dicamba’s use in GE agriculture reveal this to be the case. In the mid-2010s, Bayer’s Monsanto developed new dicamba-tolerant seeds and received approval to sell them from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. EPA had not yet approved its corresponding herbicide, but nonetheless, Bayer’s Monsanto urged farmers to plant its seed, claiming 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 drift damage began to spring up throughout the US.  Dicamba has a strong propensity to drift off-site and can defoliate other crops at very low levels. Rather than take regulatory action to stop illegal use, EPA and USDA sat on their hands while the chemicals pitted farmer against farmer, neighbor against neighbor, in communities throughout the U.S.

In 2016, EPA approved agrichemical companies’ new “low volatility” dicamba herbicide formulations under a two year conditional registration. But by the end of 2017, according to court records and reporting from Reuters, state agriculture departments, primarily in the US Midwest, had been called for over 2,600 incident reports, and scientists indicated 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.

EPA tried to tweak the label of the herbicide to lessen the impact, while Bayer persisted in blaming farmers for using older dicamba formulations. The agency let Bayer write it’s own rules on drift procedures, undermining the independent scientist who worked closely with the company at the last second. This led to the agency reapproving the highly drift-prone herbicide for another two year stint.

Advocates sued. The case worked its way through the courts, eventually resulting in a rare rebuke of EPA under the nation’s federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The written court ruling by the U.S. Ninth Circuit noted how EPA made its label language so difficult to understand as to make it “difficult if not impossible to follow for even conscientious users.” The agency also failed to consider the “anti-competitive economic effects” on non-GE markets – a knock against the agency’s propensity to favor chemical industry executives. And perhaps most egregiously, the judge ruled that EPA failed to account for how “dicamba use would tear the social fabric of farming communities.” The evidence was there, yet EPA sided with moneyed interests over the well-being of average Americans in farming communities.

Now, EPA is not only ignoring its statutory duties, but rejecting them and helping to perpetuate the chemical industry’s bad behavior. Its reapproved dicamba formulations come with i) new “important control measures” requiring a buffering agent (of questionably efficacy) be used; ii) a larger buffer (one roughly the size recommended by the independent scientists EPA allowed Bayer to overrule); iii) restrictions that prohibit use after July 30 (meaningless since that is roughly the end of the growing season) and; iv) an amorphous commitment to “simplifying the label and use directions” of dicamba products.  

“EPA believes that these new analyses address the concerns expressed in regard to EPA’s 2018 dicamba registrations in the June 2020 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,” the agency’s press release states.  Health and environmental advocates have already announced they will go back to court to challenge the decision.

Reworking EPA into an effective agency that lives up to its namesake will take time, effort, and significant involvement by all Americans. It is critically important to put pressure on elected officials hold government agencies accountable to the people, not the profits and compensation packages of agrichemical industry executives. Join Beyond Pesticides and help us fight for a more just regulatory system. For more information on the hazards of dicamba and GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides webpage.

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

Source: EPA

Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs) are buffer zones where individuals are not permitted to enter during a pesticide application, as doing so would put one at risk of dangerous exposure. EPA proposed, and has now finalized, a number of changes to the way AEZs work. The agency is: i) removing responsibility for chemical-intensive farms to keep bystanders out of off-site spray areas; ii) allowing pesticide applications to stop and start when individuals enter and exit AEZs (rather than establish set safety requirements); iii) exempting on-farm families from AEZ protections, allowing dangerous pesticide applications to take place near buildings and other shelters where family members reside within an AEZ (“rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining inside,” the agency notes in a disturbingly unscientific fashion), and; iv) “simplifies” or weakens criteria around determining the appropriate buffer size for an AEZ.

Industry began pushing rollbacks to farmworker protections early in the current administration, starting with the 2017 announcement under former Administrator Pruitt that EPA would revise Worker Protection Standards initially agreed upon under the Obama Administration.  Not all of these efforts were successful, however, as 28 Senators pushed back in a 2018 letter opposing the agency’s revisions. “These rules were revised to prevent farmworker poisonings and in the aftermath of pesticide misuse that led to serious harm for hundreds of homeowners and their families, and resulted in the tragic deaths of children,” the Senators wrote.

While certain provisions were maintained under a 2019 deal cut between the Senate and EPA, AEZs fell by the wayside. “EPA does not account for workers or bystanders being sprayed with pesticides when it conducts risk assessments or registration divisions because it ‘assumes’ these exposures do not happen,” the 28 Senators wrote. “Yet it is taking steps to undo one of the most meaningful safeguards against such exposures.”

There is no indication from EPA as to whether the agency will now consider worker or bystander exposures in pesticide registrations, given the rollback to AEZ requirements. While the agency claims its changes will “reduce regulatory burdens for farmers” it is evident that the rule is not about protecting farmers, but instead providing greater leeway to use products produced by the agrichemical industry.

Farmworkers deserve greater protections, determined by science, not political compromise. The average life expectancy for a farmworker is just 49 years, while the average American can be expected to live until 78. Is it morally repugnant that America continues to perpetuate a system that relegates a resident population to the living conditions of the 1850s.

Take a stand this election day. Vote for the candidate that will protect worker health, public health, wildlife, and the wider environment from hazardous chemicals. And don’t forget to research and weigh in down-ballot races – it takes a movement of allies to make the changes we so desperately need for the future of our health and the planet. The next EPA could reinstate worker protections, and your Congressmember could be the one that makes it happen– let them know that is a priority for you by sending a message today.

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

Source: EPA

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2020) It’s not just the top of the ballot that deserves our attention. The facts are the facts. The records of elected U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives speak for themselves. The decisions affecting public health and the environment of the past four years—with real impact now and for future generations—do not happen without the support of the majority in the U.S. Senate. If you’ve been taking action with Beyond Pesticides Action of the Week, you know this because you have been communicating with Congress for the past four years on key issues that determine whether there will be a sustainable future.

Policies that ignore the science are upheld or rejected in state legislatures through state policy. And local elected officials on city, town, and county councils make decisions on whether to allow the poisoning of our parks and waterways or push for organic land management. School board members determine whether our children are exposed to toxic pesticides on playing fields. Where do the candidates on your ballot stand? 

For those you know who don’t want to consider the facts, share the undoing of basic protections of our families and community with them. 

Vote Now! Tell Your Family and Friends to Vote!

Remember, many rules have changed during the pandemic, making it harder to figure out how to cast your ballot. This interactive guide can help you ensure your vote is counted.

Beyond Pesticides reports daily on the most up-to-date science and the dramatic failure of regulatory standards. With you, we dig deep into health and environmental effects of public policy. We work with decision makers and businesses that care about our children and our future. We measure not words but actions. 

And now we vote. For our future. For life.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 30, 2020) The European Union (EU) adopted, in mid-October, a new strategy on chemicals — including pesticides — that seeks to deal with their combined (synergistic) and cumulative impacts on human and environmental health. A highlight of the new strategy is the acceleration of work, already begun across the EU, to address the “chemical cocktail” impacts of pesticides and other chemicals. Human exposures to such “cocktails” can happen through use of multiple different agricultural pesticides that can persist as residues on food, and via industrial processes and consumer products. Beyond Pesticides has insisted for years that, here in the states, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been way behind the eight ball in dealing with the potential synergistic and cumulative impacts of the pesticides its registers for use. Advocates have argued that the agency must be far more rigorous in evaluating impacts of exposures to multiple pesticides, as well as cumulative impacts.

The toxicity problem the EU seeks to address is that interacting chemicals can have synergistic effects, even at very low levels — effects greater than and/or different from the expected impacts of each chemical per se. Pesticides can also have cumulative “toxic loading” effects in both the immediate and long terms. The new EU strategy states that, though “it is currently ‘not realistic nor economically feasible’” to evaluate every possible combination of the thousands of chemicals used in industry and society, there is emerging scientific consensus that the impacts of chemical cocktails “‘need to be taken into account and integrated more generally into chemical risk assessments.’” Beyond Pesticides concurs.

The new strategy, EURACTIV reports, “is intended as a first step towards a zero pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment, as announced in the European Green Deal [EGD].” The strength of the new strategy could lie in its proposal to exercise a (weakened) form of the Precautionary Principle: to ban the most-toxic substances “automatically,” and to permit their use only on a case-by-case basis if they can be proven “indispensable to society.” Certainly, banning terribly toxic chemicals is a great step. However, the European Commission (EC) vice-president overseeing the EGD, Frans Timmerman, commented, “We need to make sure that chemicals are produced and used in a way that does not hurt human health and the environment,” adding that the new strategy will primarily affect harmful chemicals in consumer products, such as toys, cosmetics, textiles, and food packaging. Pesticides do not appear in his “primary targets” list.

It is difficult to tell, at this early juncture, how impactful this strategy will be. Comments by Virginijus Sinkevičius, the EU Environment Commissioner, appear a bit ambiguous and may belie some of the fanfare over the announcement. Prior to the October 14 public reveal of the new strategy, he had said, credibly, “The reality is that many chemicals are also hazardous by nature and may lead to irreversible damage to humans and to the environment.” He also indicated that, although “the EU already has the most advanced chemical policy in the world . . . there is room for improvement and that the shift to greener chemistry needs to happen quicker.”

Yet post-announcement, when asked by EURACTIV how much focus pesticides receive in the strategy, he indicated that it would address pesticides “in the sense that they are chemicals,” and added that they will “need to be produced and used more sustainably, as this is the overall objective of the strategy.” Whether this new approach will address the pesticide toxicity problem at scale or with the robustness required remains to be seen.

To its credit, the strategy document does say that the European Commission (EC), the independent, executive arm of the EU, will turn especial attention to compounds that act as endocrine disruptors, which many pesticides do. (Multiple health disorders are associated with endocrine disruption.) An excerpt from the text reads: “The [EC] will: propose to establish legally binding hazard identification of endocrine disruptors, based on the definition of the WHO, building on criteria already developed for pesticides and biocides, and apply it across all legislation; ensure that endocrine disruptors are banned in consumer products as soon as they are identified, allowing their use only where it is proven to be essential for society; [and] strengthen workers’ protection by introducing endocrine disruptors as a category of substances of very high concern.”

This new chemicals initiative was spurred by the recognition of several realities. One noted in the document is that, although the EU already has fairly ambitious chemical regulations in place, worldwide production of chemicals is expected to double in the next decade; use of synthetic chemicals is also expected to increase globally. Another catalyzing fact was EU biomonitoring results that demonstrate increasing numbers of distinct and harmful chemicals showing up in human blood and tissue samples. These include pesticides, plasticizers, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals, and flame retardants.

Information in a report out of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) earlier in 2020 no doubt had an impact, as well: a third of the food Europeans consume harbors residue from two or more pesticides. In addition, public sentiment in Europe, according to the strategy document, shows that 84% of Europeans are worried about health harms from chemicals in everyday products, and 90% are worried about impacts of chemicals on the environment.

Europe, and the EU specifically, have been more proactive than the U.S. on issues related to pesticide and chemical use, climate, and sustainability generally. For starters, there is the European Green Deal, which seeks to make Europe the “first climate-neutral continent” by “transform[ing] the Union into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy [in which] there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, economic growth is decoupled from resource use, [and] no person and no place is left behind.” The EGD action plan intends to “boost the efficient use of resources by moving to a clean, circular economy, [and] restore biodiversity and cut pollution.”

In addition, the EU has its long-standing Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), for which the EC announced an update earlier in 2020. That update was touted as having far more focus (than the previous iteration) on “protecting the environment and biodiversity: the plan features climate change action, environmental care, and preserving landscapes and biodiversity.” Nevertheless, critics of this update were vociferous, claiming that aspects of it were just so much greenwashing, and contravened the goals of the developing EGD. A group of 21 scientists, for example, wrote a scathing letter endorsed by another 3,600, saying that the updated CAP was a failure and must be dramatically overhauled to “embrace organic practices and support small farmers.” March 2020 New York Times reporting on the CAP update “showed the disconnect between Europe’s green image and its farm policy, which has caused lasting environmental damage and left visible pockmarks across Europe.”

Back across the pond, pesticide (and chemical) regulation in the U.S. trails toxicological science in accounting for synergistic and cumulative effects. EPA continues to regulate pesticides primarily on a chemical-by-chemical basis. When it ventures toward addressing synergistic or cumulative impacts, it does so in a narrow way: e.g., for one active ingredient at a time, or for one class of organism. For example, in 2019, the agency requested public comment on a proposal to require data that could help determine synergistic effects of some pesticides; and a year ago, EPA announced a proposed interim process on assessment of potential synergistic effects of mixtures of active ingredients in pesticides on non-target organisms.

These steps are useful in a limited way, but are typical of EPA’s focus on “spot mitigation” of pesticide toxicity. Rather than a whack-a-mole approach to pesticide harms, the agency should adopt a precautionary approach that doesn’t subject everyone and everything to unknown and potentially harmful impacts of multiple pesticides, or a variety of pesticides over time, or to any pesticides, given individual vulnerabilities.

Beyond Pesticides wrote in July 2020, “Given the many thousands of chemical pesticides on the market, the complexity of trying to ensure ‘relative’ safety from them (especially considering potential synergistic interactions, as well as interactions with genetic and “lifestyle” factors), and the heaps of cash that fund corporate interests (i.e., selling these compounds) via lobbyists and trade associations, there is one conclusion. “Mitigation” of pesticide risks is a nibble around the edges of a pervasive poison problem; this approach does not at all adequately protect the fragility of life.”

Genuine solutions to the issue of chemical pesticide harms to people, ecosystems, and wildlife require 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. Help support advocacy for that future: join Beyond Pesticides, advocate with decision makers in local communities, and please: vote for elected officials at every level that support genuinely protective regulation and a transition to non­–chemically intensive agriculture and land management.

NOV. 3 ELECTION REMINDER: vote early if you still can; or bring your absentee/mail-in ballot to your precinct drop-off box NOW; or make sure you vote on Tuesday, November 3. Your health, and the planet’s, are on the ballot.

Source: https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/eu-chemicals-strategy-to-address-pesticide-chemical-cocktails/

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2020) Natural areas around farmlands play an important role in managing pest outbreaks and therefore reducing insecticide use, a new study published in the journal Ecology Letters finds. While industrial agriculture puts pressure on farmers to grow single crops on ever larger farms to achieve economies of scale, these monoculture landscapes have significant downsides for public health and the environment. “Overall, our results suggest that simplified landscapes increase vineyard pest outbreaks and escalate insecticide spray frequencies,” said lead author Daniel Paredes, PhD, to the Daily Democrat. “In contrast, vineyards surrounded by more productive habitats and more shrubland area are less likely to apply insecticides.”

To investigate the effect of nearby landscapes on farm pest pressure, the team of University of California, Davis scientists used a database created by the government of Spain. For 13 years, the government monitored 400 Spanish vineyards for the presence of the European Grapevine Moth. The moth is a notorious vineyard pest (discovered in California vineyards in 2009), laying three generations of eggs on grapes. In the first generation, the moth larvae will web and feed on flowers. In the second and third, they feed on berries, damaging harvests.

Scientists developed a model to determine how the surrounding landscape may have influenced recorded pest pressure, and farmer spray patterns.

Results show that pest outbreaks above levels that cause significant economic damage are much more likely when farms are surrounded by other vineyards. The effect was particularly pronounced with the second and third generation of moths, which cause the most widespread damage. “At harvest, we found pest outbreaks increased four-fold in simplified, vineyard-dominated landscapes compared to complex landscapes in which vineyards are surrounded by semi-natural habitats,” said Dr. Paredes.

Analysis found that farmers are more likely to apply insecticides if economic threshold levels are met, with use continuing to increase the longer time is spent over those thresholds. Thus, because landscape effects are driving pest outbreaks, they also lead to more frequent insecticide applications.

The researchers note that having such long-term comprehensive data is critical. That’s because pests populations can often be “stochastic,” or random, in the short-term, and only reveal accurate trends over a longer period of time. To show this, the researchers attempted to conduct the same modeling on a shorter time frame with a smaller number of farms, and found that the same association would not be discovered. Study co-author Jay Rosenheim, PhD, told the Daily Democrat that their research “shows how using really huge datasets — in this case generated by government employees working with farmers in Spain — can reveal how natural habitats surrounding agriculture can shape pest outbreaks and pesticide use in vineyards.”

While it is so much easier to think about and confront agricultural production in simple terms, simplicity is dangerous for ecology and the environment. The complex interplay between living communities and the natural landscape can help us put pests in check without outside chemical inputs. It fosters resiliency – when one component of the landscape is out of balance, in a complex system, another one is likely available to take its place. Simplified landscapes make the use of industrial machinery and chemical technologies easier, but are presupposed on a precarious foundation. Experience finds it is nearly impossible for the industrial model to replicate the ecosystem services a healthy landscape otherwise provides.

More and more data is showing that the crises we confront in the natural world are deeply interconnected. Habitat loss and fragmentation, and the increasing use of toxic pesticides both negatively reinforce each other, leading to an ecological death spiral and insect apocalypse.  

A recent study on wild bumblebees reinforces the importance of this connection in regards to positive aspects (rather than negative aspects, like pests) in the environment that we want to foster. It found that both limited food sources and pesticide exposure alone stress bees, but the two in combination are additive, leading to significantly more harm when both negative environmental conditions are present.

“Habitat conservation thus represents an economically and environmentally sound approach for achieving sustainable grape production in Spain,” said study co-author Daniel Karp, PhD. The same is likely to apply well beyond Spain.

Help promote a system of agriculture that understands and accounts for complex systems. Organic agriculture is not perfect, but alongside other conservation measures represents a viable path to a food system that works with, rather than against nature. Learn more about the benefits of organic agriculture on Beyond Pesticides Why Organic program page.

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

Source: Daily Democrat, Ecology Letters

(Beyond Pesticides, October 28, 2020) This month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized decisions allowing continued use of a range of highly toxic pesticides, including the herbicide paraquat, and the synthetic pyrethroid class of insecticides. The move has been met with stinging criticism from the health and environmental community, but the decisions come as no surprise. Continued allowance of hazardous pesticides is a result of a weak law, lax regulations, and an administration that has consistently refused to follow even deficient protections.

“The EPA’s pesticide office has sunk to a despicable new low in allowing farmworkers, small children and the environment to be sacrificial pawns in the profit schemes of its friends in the pesticide industry,” said Nathan Donley, PhD, senior scientist at Center for Biological Diversity. “In rushing to reapprove these deadly chemicals, it’s ignored its own scientists and independent researchers, refused to protect human health and the environment, and shown itself to be the panting lapdog of a morally bankrupt industry.”

EPA reregistered paraquat despite overwhelming evidence that the chemical cannot be used without ‘unreasonable adverse effects on the environment’ — the lackluster standard in federal pesticide law to which the agency is required to regulate a chemical. EPA admits, “one small sip [of paraquat] can be fatal, and there is no antidote.” While many rightfully point to the EU has having higher standards than U.S. pesticide laws, paraquat is not only banned in the EU (since 2007), it is also being phased out in countries with arguably weaker legal requirements than the US, like Brazil and China.

There is strong evidence linking the use of paraquat to the development of Parkinson’s disease. Research finds that cumulative exposures over one’s life increases risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, and other factors such as genetics or exposure to other chemicals further elevate the threat. “The data is overwhelming” said Samuel M. Goldman, MD, an epidemiologist in the San Francisco Veterans Affairs health system to the New York Times. “I’m not a farmer, I don’t need to kill weeds, but I have to believe there are less dangerous options out there.” A 2016 New York Times exposé found, millions of pounds of paraquat are still being imported into the U.S. from other countries, sprayed on nearly 15 million acres of U.S. cropland.

In making its decision, EPA ignored a letter from Beyond Pesticides and over 50 other public health, environmental, environmental justice, and farmworker groups, including the Michael J Fox Foundation. Ostensibly, the agency conducted an epidemiological literature review, but the exercise was futile, as EPA simply made broad statements dismissing the science as insufficient.

The agency took the same approach in its work to reapprove synthetic pyrethroids, checking off another box on the pesticide industry’s wish list. Synthetic pyrethroids are highly toxic to pollinators and other insects, and have been repeatedly linked by peer-reviewed studies to neurological issues, such as learning disabilities in children. But EPA stripped away important protections for children, reducing a ‘safety factor’ (accepted exposure rates) from 3x to 1x. Eliminating this safety factor means that EPA thinks children, despite their increased susceptibility to these chemicals, should be exposed to the same amount of synthetic pyrethroids as a grown adult male.

This is an instance where EPA eschewed even the weak legal requirements of federal pesticide law in favor of industry. In 2017, agrichemical industry umbrella group Croplife America submitted comments to EPA urging it use a bogus health model developed by an industry group in order to determine the children’s safety factor. EPA dutifully employed that model, while at the same time dismissing, as it did with paraquat, independent epidemiological literature showing harm.

In addition to paraquat and the synthetic pyrethroids, the agency also registered the highly toxic, water contaminating fumigant 1,3-Dichloropropene, reducing its cancer rating from a “likely” carcinogen to one that shows “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential.” Methoyml, a hazardous insecticide found to threaten endangered species, and part of a Bayer plant chemical explosion in the late 2000s, was also reregistered for continue use. And there is breaking news that EPA is likely to continue dicamba’s allowance on GE crops despite a successful lawsuit voiding registration for that use.

While Beyond Pesticides continues to support efforts to ban individual chemicals, as Representative Velazquez’s Ban Paraquat Act would do, these efforts will not stop the firehose of toxic decisions made under the current administration. It is critical that the next administration work towards systemic change in our pesticide regulatory process. Beyond Pesticides encourages all U.S. residents to vote for the candidate that will best protect American’s public health, and the environment upon which we all depend. After you vote – don’t let up – it will take a concerted effort by concerned residents to purge the pesticide industry from the halls of EPA, restore science to its rightful place, and on top of that, change the system to improve protections. It’s a tall order – but one that’s possible and provides hope for a better tomorrow.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity, EPA (Paraquat, synthetic pyrethroids, 1,3-Dichloropropene, Methomyl)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 27, 2020) The insecticide fipronil is more toxic to aquatic insects than previously thought, often present in U.S. waterways, and can trigger trophic cascades that disrupt entire aquatic ecosystems, finds new research published by the U.S. Geological  Survey (USGS). The data have important implications for waterways throughout the country, but particularly in the Southeast U.S. where the chemical was found at hazardous levels in over half of sampled steams. Despite the high quality of the findings by a U.S. government agency, pesticide regulators at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) do not adequately consider ecosystem-level effects when determining whether to register a pesticide. As a result, without public pressure on the agency, it is unlikely it will follow the science and take the action necessary to rein in use and safeguard the environment.

Fipronil is a systemic pesticide that can travel through plant tissues and be expressed in its pollen, nectar, and dew droplets. Due to its systemic properties and similar toxicity profile, it is often targeted for restriction alongside the notorious neonicotinoid class of insecticides. Although fipronil is equally concerning, there is less data on the range of harm the chemical may cause.

To better understand fipronil’s effects, researchers used varying scientific approaches. Mesocosms, smalls structures containing various plants and animals intended to mimic the natural environment, were set up in a lab. These structures were used to investigate the direct toxicity of fipronil to a range of species, as well as ecosystem-wide effects altered by fipronil contamination. While six stream-mimicking mesocosms were untreated as a control, thirty were dosed at varying levels with either fipronil or one of it’s breakdown materials (metabolites). Scientists then looked at stream monitoring data to determine the real-world hazards the chemical poses in a natural setting.

The mesocosm produced concerning results. Researchers indicate that fipronil’s toxicity was 3 to 2,600 times lower than what has been reported in available literature. Certain species, such as mayfly and stoneflies, were more sensitive than others, such as midges and caddisfly. But, by time the 30 day mesocosm experiment was over, fipronil reduced the overall diversity of species present. The reduction in diversity was found to have a dose-response relationship with fipronil. Meaning, the more fipronil in the mesocosm, the greater the loss in diversity.

The chemical also altered the time it takes for certain species complete metamorphosis. Midges, which start their lives as aquatic invertebrates before metamorphosizing into flying adults, delayed their transition by several days in every mesocosm containing higher concentrations of fipronil.

Beyond direct toxicity, introducing fipronil into the stream mesocosm ecosystem altered food web dynamics, initiating a trophic cascade. A trophic cascade occurs when a disruption, in this case a pesticide, significantly reduces, changes the behavior of, or destroys certain populations of plants and animals, causing effects that ripple up and down the food chain. In this instance, fipronil harmed populations of insects known as scrapers (sometimes known as grazers) which include snails other aquatic insects that feed on algae. This results in a bloom in algae populations. Although fipronil is not a fertilizer, it nonetheless has the potential to indirectly cause harmful algae blooms in U.S. streams and waterways.

Using the data collected, researchers were able to put together a “hazard concentration” for fipronil that was determined to be protective for 95% of impacted stream species. This hazard concentration was then cross-referenced with data collected on fipronil concentrations in 444 sites throughout the U.S. According to a USGS press release, “18% of the streams sampled nationally had fipronil compound concentrations, averaged over a 4-week sampling period, that exceeded the benign level determined by the mesocosm experiment. In the Southeast, where fipronil was detected more frequently than in the other four regions, 52% of streams sampled had fipronil compound concentrations that exceeded the benign level.” Scientists also saw the dose-response relationship in real time – with stream biodiversity lower when fipronil levels were higher.

Results of this study confirm that the environment would be well-served if those tasked with protecting it were to restrict use of this insecticide. The “hazard concentration” established by USGS in in this study aligns with recommendations made by Beyond Pesticides in its article on trophic cascades, Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem. In it the organization urges the development of a “No Observed Adverse Effect Level” for ecosystems, in addition to individual species. Thus, USGS has provided regulators at EPA with a framework for evaluating ecosystem-wide effects; one that should be instituted into our currently pesticide regulatory framework immediately. EPA must require manufacturers to conduct mesocosm experiments on typical aquatic communities, and reject pesticides that cannot establish an adequate safety threshold.

The key lesson learned from this study should not only be that fipronil is harmful and should be banned. There is already ample evidence to make this conclusion. Many other insecticides – including the neonicotinoids, as well as the organophosphate chlorpyrifos, and the synthetic pyrethroid bifenthrin – have been found to cause similar trophic effects in lab mesocosms and the real world. Eliminating fipronil will not reduce the damage these other chemicals cause to aquatic communities. In the long term, the best viable option to ensure healthy ecosystems are systemic changes to the way we allow pesticides to come to market. Changing this fundamental process, by employing cutting edge evaluations like USGS scientists have shown is possible, will ensure long term protection of threatened waters and the wider environment.  

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

 Source: USGS press release, Science Advances,  

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2020) A high percentage of the disinfectants approved by EPA for use against coronavirus contain quaternary ammonia compounds (quats). EPA’s approved list is used by schools and other institutions—unfortunately, without guidance for avoiding harmful effects.

Quats are very toxic. They are especially dangerous in the context of a respiratory pandemic. Quats increase the risk for asthma and allergic sensitization. Evidence from occupational exposures shows increased risk of rhinitis and asthma with exposure to quats. Quats are on the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics list of asthmagens and may be a more potent asthmagen than bleach.

Tell the EPA and Congress that EPA must not recommend toxic disinfectants without the context of their damaging impacts and other necessary protective measures.

One quat, benzalkonium chloride, has also been associated with dermatitis. Quats appear to be sensitizers and irritants to the skin and mucous membranes and are suspected to display an immunologic cross-reactivity between each other and with other chemical compounds containing ammonium ion.

Quats also are mutagenic and reproductive toxicants. Some quats have shown to be mutagenic and to damage animal DNA and DNA in human lymphocytes at much lower levels than are present in cleaning chemicals. Mice whose cages were cleaned with QACs had very low fertility rates.

The continued zeroing in on disinfectants distracts schools from the more important role of measures to reduce airborne exposure in schools. Measures to accomplish this include reducing the time spent indoors, engineering controls that increase ventilation while preventing air movement from one person to another, and use of air filtration.

EPA’s List N disinfectants do not differentiate by levels of toxicity and potential harm to people, especially children. Beyond Pesticides has created a safer list, drawn from List N, which enables people and decision-makers to avoid chemicals that harm.

EPA allows the registration of pesticides that are known to present hazards even though there are less hazardous pesticides on the market. That’s because EPA does not do an alternatives analysis and determine whether a less toxic material and/or a practice can get the job done just as effectively. Instead, EPA conducts risk assessments that are admittedly filled with uncertainties in addition to what is known about a chemical’s effects—such as impacts on people with preexisting conditions (comorbidities), effects of multiple exposures to the same and other chemicals (mixtures), and numerous other factors not considered by EPA.

TAKE ACTION: Tell EPA and Congress that EPA must not recommend toxic disinfectants without the context of their damaging impacts and other necessary protective measure.

Letter to EPA and Congress

A high percentage of the disinfectants approved by EPA for use against coronavirus contain quaternary ammonia compounds (quats). EPA’s approved list is used by schools and other institutions—unfortunately, without guidance for avoiding harmful effects.

Quats are very toxic. They are especially dangerous in the context of a respiratory pandemic. Quats increase the risk for asthma and allergic sensitization. Evidence from occupational exposures shows increased risk of rhinitis and asthma with exposure to quats. Quats are on the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics list of asthmagens and may be a more potent asthmagen than bleach.

One quat, benzalkonium chloride, has also been associated with dermatitis. Quats appear to be sensitizers and irritants to the skin and mucous membranes and are suspected to display an immunologic cross-reactivity between each other and with other chemical compounds containing ammonium ion.

Quats also are mutagenic and reproductive toxicants. Some quats have shown to be mutagenic and to damage animal DNA and DNA in human lymphocytes at much lower levels than are present in cleaning chemicals. Mice whose cages were cleaned with QACs had very low fertility rates.

The continued zeroing in on disinfectants distracts schools from the more important role of measures to reduce airborne exposure in schools. Measures to accomplish this include reducing the time spent indoors, engineering controls that increase ventilation while preventing air movement from one person to another, and use of air filtration.

EPA’s List N disinfectants does not differentiate by levels of toxicity and potential harm to people, especially children. Beyond Pesticides has created a safer list, drawn from List N, which enables people and decision-makers to avoid chemicals that harm.

EPA allows the registration of pesticides that are known to present hazards even though there are less hazardous pesticides on the market. That’s because EPA does not do an alternatives analysis and determine whether a less toxic material and/or a practice can get the job done just as effectively. Instead, EPA conducts risk assessments that are admittedly filled with uncertainties in addition to what is known about a chemical’s effects—such as impacts on people with preexisting conditions (comorbidities), effects of multiple exposures to the same and other chemicals (mixtures), and numerous other factors not considered by EPA.

EPA must not recommend toxic disinfectants without providing the context of their damaging impacts and other necessary protective measures.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2020) In central California, what promises to be a landmark series of lawsuits against Corteva (formerly DowAgroSciences), maker of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, is under way, spearheaded by the case Alba Luz Calderon de Cerda and Rafael Cerda Martinez v. Corteva Inc., et al. This first suit, brought by the parents of Rafael Cerda Calderon, Jr. on his behalf, charges that his lifelong disabilities were caused by chronic exposures to chlorpyrifos. The parents are suing for general damages, compensatory damages (due to Rafael, Jr.’s loss of earning capacity), medical care costs, and “punitive damages for the willful, reckless, and recklessly indifferent conduct of the Defendants” in intentionally hiding the dangers of their chlorpyrifos products from customers and the public. As with so many dangerous pesticides, absent effective federal regulation, states, cities, and other entities are taking action to protect people from this compound, and as in this case, individuals are seeking redress for harms suffered. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for a ban on the use of chlorpyrifos because of the grave risks it poses.

The case was filed in mid-September in California Superior Court, Kings County, and names not only Corteva, but also, the cities of Huron and Avenal, Woolf Farming Company, Cottonwest, LLC, John A. Kochergen Properties (successor in interest to Alex A. Kochergen Farms), and an “invisible” pesticide applicator (#1020351) as defendants. Plaintiffs are represented by several law firms, led by Calwell Luce diTrapano PLLC of Charleston, West Virginia. Lead attorney Stuart Calwell reports that the firm is “in the process of reviewing around 200-plus records. We probably got 87 that look like they’re provable cases.” AP News reports that at least 50 additional plaintiffs have emerged, and are in the litigation pipeline for similar harms caused by this toxic pesticide.

Chlorpyrifos was developed by Dow Chemical Company (subsequently Dow AgroSciences and now Corteva) in the 1960s as an alternative to DDT, the notoriously toxic compound that was used widely in the mid-20^th century and then banned in 1972. Chlorpyrifos has been used intensively in agriculture (for almond, apricot, cotton, and other crops) in the central California San Joaquin Valley for decades. It is sold under the brand names Lorsban and Dursban.

Chlorpyrifos is a potent neurotoxicant that has particularly nasty effects on babies and children, as Beyond Pesticides has noted: “Pregnant women who live within a mile of agricultural fields treated with insecticides like chlorpyrifos are more likely to have a child develop autism.” It also threatens in utero fetal development: “Women in the second trimester living near chlorpyrifos-treated fields are 3.3 times more likely to have their children diagnosed with autism.” It can cause broad developmental problems, including “decreased cognitive function, lower IQs, attention deficit disorder, developmental delays, and a host of other pervasive developmental and learning disorders in children.”

The lawsuit claims that Rafael Cerda Calderon, Jr. was exposed to chlorpyrifos, both in utero and during his infancy, to thousands of pounds of the compound. The pesticide found its way into the family’s home via the air, the fields and packing houses where his parents worked, and the water they all drank. The young Mr. Calderon’s mother worked in a packing house during the pregnancy, handling lettuce and citrus sprayed with chlorpyrifos; his father worked as a pesticide applicator in agricultural fields, undoubtedly bringing the compound home with him. AP News reports that, in addition, the Huron apartment building in which the family lived during Ms. Calderon de Cerda’s pregnancy was located “near massive, indiscriminate spraying of chlorpyrifos that contaminated the city’s water” — which they used for drinking, cooking, and bathing. When Rafael, Jr. was eight months old, the family moved to Avenal, but did not escape chlorpyrifos: that water supply was also permeated with the pesticide.

The suit asserts that defendants Woolf, Cottonwest, the anonymous applicator #1020351, and Kochergen Properties, in the aggregate and during Rafael, Jr.’s gestation, infancy, and toddler years (2002–2006), applied to areas adjacent to the family’s drinking water sources (the California Aqueduct) or the family’s place of residence, more than 5,400 pounds of chlorpyrifos. The plaintiffs’ complaint says that Rafael, Jr.’s exposure to and harm from chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon began in utero and has been “ongoing and continuous throughout his life.”

As a baby and toddler, Rafael, Jr. exhibited developmental problems, including weakness in his extremities, reduced muscle tone, gross motor delay, deficits in social, language, and fine motor skills, and cognitive and attentional deficits. Born prematurely in 2003, he is diagnosed and lives with autism, a seizure disorder, ADHD (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder), and intellectual and cognitive disabilities. As the complaint spells out, “He has ongoing difficulties with verbal and nonverbal communication, personal hygiene, and attending to his own needs and activities of daily living. It is extremely unlikely that Rafael, Jr. will ever be able to be gainfully employed, or able to live independently, and he is reasonably certain to need some assistance and care for the rest of his natural life.” Plaintiff’s attorney Stuart Calwell comments, as AP News reports, “Young Rafael and others like him were literally awash in this deadly chemical before they were born. Their central nervous systems never had a chance.”

The Modesto Bee reports Mr. Calwell’s comment that, “The neurotoxin is especially dangerous once it enters a household because it can live for years.’ He and his team have spent years testing rural areas populated mostly by farmworkers in the San Joaquin Valley. ‘We found the stuff in cars; it gets in the dashboard, it goes anywhere the wind goes. We even sampled a teddy bear and even found it there. So for a child living there, with every breath he takes, he’s getting a little dose. It’s very insidious.’”

Chlorpyrifos harbors a highly toxic “Trojan horse.” When the compound comes into contact with water or sunshine, or is exposed to a chlorine compound (with which most drinking water systems treat water for biologic control), a byproduct called “chlorpyrifos oxon” is created. This oxon byproduct is the active metabolite that is responsible for chlorpyrifos’s mode of action: inhibiting the action of acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme critical to normal nerve impulse transmission.

Chlorpyrifos oxon represents 1,000 –3,000 times the toxic risk to the neurological system in mammals than does chlorpyrifos per se; thus, it has never been registered for use by EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). It is a close chemical relative to the chemical warfare agent Sarin, and can persist in drinking water for a typical 72 hours. That said, chlorine compounds actually retard the degradation of chlorpyrifos oxon, acting as a sort of “preservative” that allows it to persist in water even longer than that “typical” 72 hours.

Attorney Calwell explained (in personal communication with Beyond Pesticides): “The driver of this case is EPA’s failure to appreciate the propensity of the parent compound — chlorpyrifos — to convert abiotically to the oxon in the environment when it is exposed to sunlight, water, chlorine, or other trace compounds. It does not convert only, as Dow has claimed, ‘biotically’ when the pesticide enters an insect; it happens abiotically and broadly in the environment. Abiotic conversion is rampant. Of course, not 100% of chlorpyrifos converts at application, but enough does that it is impossible to make chlorpyrifos ‘safe.’”

Thus, under certain conditions, the toxic impacts of chlorpyrifos can persist for months or years, meaning that people can be exposed nearly constantly to this toxin and its oxon in water, food, homes, cars, and even on everyday household items, including toys. The damage caused by chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon is literally almost incalculable.

Exposure to chlorpyrifos oxon does not happen through “misuse,” but when the pesticide is used according to the EPA-reviewed label instructions. The subject lawsuit claims that Corteva (Dow) knew about the dangers of this byproduct and failed to warn regulators, customers, and the public. The complaint asserts, “Dow claims that the effectiveness of chlorpyrifos as an insecticide depends on the target insect’s biologic ability to convert chlorpyrifos, once ingested, to the oxon. Dow does not disclose that chlorpyrifos is unstable in the environment — particularly in the presence of chlorine or bromine, which catalyze the conversion — and that it quickly begins to convert to an oxon when mixed with water according to label directions, nor does Dow disclose that it will also convert in sunlight during and after application, which Dow knew or should have known as far back as the late 1960s or early 1970s. Unlike chlorpyrifos, the oxon is relatively stable in the environment, especially once it gets indoors, so that its toxic effects persist for months. The practical effect of this reality is that an application of chlorpyrifos to the fields and orchards of California’s Central Valley is an application of the unregistered neurotoxin, chlorpyrifos oxon.”

And yet, this pesticide has continued to be permitted for use by EPA. Mr. Calwell commented (in personal communication) that EPA’s relationship with chlorpyrifos and its manufacturer has been characterized by misdirection and “junk science.” He recalled that the first chlorpyrifos case on which he worked was that of Joshua Herb, a nine-year-old boy who had become a quadriplegic after his home had been treated with Dursban. During the case discovery process, the judge ordered Dow to provide internal paperwork, which showed that the company had withheld from EPA reports of 249 cases of chlorpyrifos poisoning.

That litigation charged that the company failed, for years and in spite of evidence, to consider or test the possibility that chlorpyrifos is a developmental neurotoxicant. Further, it alleged that Dow “contaminated the published information and literature available with bad science, through its negligent, reckless, and willful underreporting and concealment of adverse incidents and its overproduction of studies finding no adverse effects by heavily biased design.” That lawsuit contended that if the company had acted responsibly, it would have removed the product from the market before 2002. Dow was fined by EPA for willful concealment of those reports, and the suit ultimately turned into the “straw that broke the camel’s back” — catalyzing the agreement between EPA and Dow to eliminate residential uses of chlorpyrifos — a de facto federal ban — “in exchange” for the company’s continued ability to sell chlorpyrifos to the agricultural market.

Currently, a California statewide ban stopped sales of the pesticide in February 2020, and prohibits growers from possessing or using it after December 31 of this year. A functional ban on chlorpyrifos in agriculture was proposed during the Obama administration, but had not taken effect when the Trump administration came to power, and was rejected in 2017 by EPA’s then-administrator Scott Pruitt. Since then, multiple lawsuits have been pursued to try to get EPA to ban the dangerous pesticide. The latest twist is that in late September 2020, EPA announced it would continue to permit use of chlorpyrifos, even in the face of the agency’s own scientific findings of dangerousness.

Use of chlorpyrifos is not safe, period. Beyond EPA’s failure to ban, or even strictly regulate, this highly neurotoxic pesticide stands the massive environmental and agricultural injustice this compound’s use represents, particularly in areas of the country where people of color comprise the bulk of agricultural workers. They and their families are put at disproportionate risk from this compound, as this lawsuit against Corteva illustrates painfully.

Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor scientific, regulatory, and legal developments related to chlorpyrifos. Public and agricultural worker health require that the sale and use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture be banned in the U.S. Further, the comprehensive solutions lie in land and pest management systems that do not rely on toxic chemicals. See Beyond Pesticides pages on Agricultural Justice and Organic Agriculture for more.

Sources: https://www.modbee.com/news/california/article246568668.html, https://apnews.com/press-release/globe-newswire/business-rafael-calderon-government-regulations-lawsuits-crime-68558bd166118a6930c5ba3c90b8c7f0, and https://www.cldlaw.com/storage/app/media/CPF/calderon-complaint-9-16-20.pdf.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2020) Prolonged dermal (skin) exposure to hazardous disinfectants, via handling and/or residue on surfaces, can induce the risk of adverse skin reactions (i.e., inflammation, burns, necrosis), according to a novel review analysis published in Clinics in Dermatology. Researchers of the review, “Dermatologic reactions to disinfectant use during the COVID-19 pandemic,” examine skin reactions associated with dermal exposure to various disinfectants approved for use against COVID-19 by the European Chemical Agency (ECA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) classifies disinfectants as pesticides, so it is up to the states to delegate training, registration, and enforcement. Many states enforce pesticide training that allows professional applicators to learn how to handle, apply, and store pesticides properly. However, many of these same states do not have professional training for disinfectant use, especially wide-scale applications. Consequently, disinfectant applications are now more pervasive than ever, especially as school reopenings ensues. Considering failure to “Comply with Labeling and Permit Conditions” was the most common pesticide use violation of 2018, according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), advocates are urging global leaders to recognize the potential impacts that frivolous disinfectant use can have on the largest human organ, the skin.

Amidst the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), the global demand for disinfectants and sanitizers has increased substantially as a means of preventing illness in residential and non-residential settings. Initially, public health officials considered disinfecting highly trafficked areas as the most effective way to combat COVID-19. This notion has led to improper disinfectant practices in many countries where trucks, drones, or robots disperse massive amounts of disinfectants into public areas. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reported a sharp increase in calls to poison control centers regarding illnesses resulting from the use or misuse of toxic disinfectants during the pandemic. The World Health Organization (WHO) and other infectious disease specialists condemn indiscriminate and vast amounts of disinfectant spraying in public areas as it is both ineffective and a health hazard on contact or when combined with other disinfectants.

As the pressure to reopen public facilities, like schools, restaurants, gyms, etc., increases, the lack of proper disinfection guidelines and monitoring generates concerns, especially as a means to prevent the spread of COVID-19 includes spraying students with disinfectants. The active ingredients in most disinfectants are harmful because these chemical compounds have corrosive and irritating properties that should never encounter bare skin.

Researchers examined studies related to skin reactions caused by various chemical classes of disinfectants common in consumer products. Furthermore, researchers assessed adverse skin reactions to disinfectant use and the chemicals’ skin penetration ability via transdermal penetration and interactions with skin components that facilitate skin penetration.

There are ten different chemical classes included in the review: alcohols (i.e., isopropanol, ethanol), biguanides (i.e., polyhexanide), α-hydroxy acids (AHA) (i.e., citric acid, lactic acid, glycolic acid), chlorine and chlorine compounds (i.e., sodium hypochlorite/bleach, sodium chloride), metal ions (i.e., silver, nanosilver), aldehydes (i.e., glutaraldehyde), peroxygen compounds (i.e., hydrogen peroxide, peroxyacetic acid), iodophors (i.e., containing iodine and a surfactant/wetting-agent), phenolic compounds (i.e., cresols, hexachlorobenzene, chlorophenols), anionic surfactants (i.e., dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid), and cationic surfactants (i.e., quaternary ammonium compounds).

According to the review, most disinfectants cause some form of acute skin irritation. Although certain disinfectants are less harmful upon dermal contact than others, many of these chemicals cause irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). ICD is a non-immune response that manifests into a localized skin inflammation by directly damaging the skin following toxic agent exposure. ACD is an immune response to skin contact with a dermal allergen that an individual is already allergic (sensitized) to, causing non-localized skin inflammation and/or systemic bodily response. However, chronic, cumulative exposure to more mild chemical irritants can still elicit a skin reaction.

Alcohols have low transdermal penetration properties, even upon excessive use. Therefore, WHO recommends the use of either ethanol (80%v/v) or isopropanol (70%v/v) upon direct contact with skin via hand rubs. However, some research suggests alcohol-based products can cause ICD and ACD. Studies find an association with pre-irritated skin (e.g., by detergents or water, a cut) and a burning sensation upon contact with alcohol-based antiseptic products. Although allergic reactions, like ACD, to dermal contact with alcohol antiseptic products lack considerable scientific evidence, some studies report allergic reactions such as contact urticarial (hives). Furthermore, solvents in alcohol products may cause mild irritation to the skin due to impurities, aldehyde metabolites, or fragrances.

Although aldehydes, like glutaraldehyde, do not readily penetrate the skin, dermal contact with high concentrations of glutaraldehyde (~20%) can cause ICD and necrosis (death of cells in an organ/tissue). Occupational and experimental exposure to aldehydes frequently causes ACD. Furthermore, upon contact with skin, glutaraldehyde produces a “tanning effect,” triggering yellow-brown skin discoloration due to an alternation of protein structure from chemical crosslinking of proteins like keratin and collagen.

Skin penetration of biguanides like polyhexanide low and ACD is rare. However, research finds increasing reports of ACD incidents over the years, potentially due to the cross-reaction this chemical has with other biguanides like chlorhexidine. Moreover, polyhexanide concentrations above 1.2% are moderate to strong skin sensitizers (allergens), and although rare, can cause anaphylaxis upon exposure to wounded skin.

Chlorine and chlorine compounds concentrations between 5-10% can cause skin reactions that manifest as a burning sensation, pain, redness, edema, blisters, and necrosis. Any concentration of hypochlorite—a chlorine and chlorine compound—above 10% is corrosive and can cause chemical burns. Upon dilution to 0.1%, these chemical compounds have low skin penetrative abilities due to its high reactivity, oxidizing, and alkalinity properties when in contact with proteins on the skin. However, these same properties are what worsens the adverse effect of these chemicals when mixed with other disinfectant products, including sodium hydroxide (exothermic reaction), acetic acid (toxic gas), alcohol (toxic gas), and household cleaners that contain ammonia (toxic gas). Although there is little dermal uptake of poisonous gas by unwounded skin, the gas can still irritate the skin. Furthermore, the oxidizing properties of chlorine dioxide—a highly reactive and unstable chlorine compound—have similar effects in the skin as hypochlorite compounds, but milder due to chlorine dioxide’s rapid degradation.

Iodophors, consisting of iodine complexed with a nonionic surfactant, cause less skin irritation than iodine disinfectants. However, the severity of transdermal penetration is time-dependent, as extensive dermal contact with chemical concentrations at 10% triggers ICD along with chemical burns, pain, blistering lesions, and tissue necrosis. Although pre-wounded skin is more prone to the side effects of iodophor, the continuous release of free iodine acting as a weak oxidant can also trigger side effects. Reports of ACD and allergic reactions to iodophors are rare, and other ingredients in iodophor products may be the culprit.

Although metal ions, like silver and nanosilver, are not readily absorbed via the skin, and ACD is mainly due to other constituent ingredients, topical application of metal ions to a wound may induce ICD, causing localized brown-black skin discoloration.

According to the review, alpha-hydroxy acids (AHA) have skin penetrative properties that are time-, pH-, and concentration-dependent. At lower concentrations, AHAs have little to no skin reaction and are commonplace in dermatologic practice. Usually, concertation of 10% or less and a pH of 3.5 or higher can cause burning, dermatitis, skin peeling, itching, and moderate sunburns. Skin reactions, including epidermal and dermal thickness, occur at a concentration of 20-40% for citric acid (CA) and glycolic acid (GA) and 12% for lactic acid (LA). AHA may decrease pigment deposition in the skin and induce ACD that trigger hives and skin photosensitivity, with concentrations of GA and CA at 3% or more enhancing ultraviolet (UV) damage to the skin.

The rapid chemical degradation of peroxygen compounds like hydrogen peroxide impedes an assessment of the dermal absorption rate. Although non-threatening, temporary skin bleaching can occur at some concentrations, while only concentrations of hydrogen peroxide at 35% or higher manifest skin reactions like reversible erythema and edema, irreversible skin peeling, and rare vacuolar eruption. Concentrations of hydrogen peroxide at 50% can induce chemical burns that can occur at lower concentrations if the skin experiences prolonged exposure to the chemical. Despite hydrogen peroxides being a strong oxidizing antiseptic, it is generally non-irritating at a concentration of 10% or less. On the other hand, the strong oxidative properties of peroxygen compounds like peracetic acid (PA) cause skin reactions upon repeated exposure, including acute skin irritation, erythema, scaling, and roughness at concentrations as low as 0.1%. The review notes that the regular use of PA at a concentration of 0.2-0.5% during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak triggered skin irritation, burning, and itching lasting up to 5 hours.

Phenolic compounds, like phenol and its chemical derivatives (ortho phenyl phenol [OPP] and ortho-benzylpara-chlorophenol [OBPCP]), have high skin penetrative properties and can trigger ACD skin reaction soon after contact at a concentration as low as 0.1%. Skin exposure to concentrations of OPP and OBPCP at 1% can reduce pigmentation and induce vitiligo. Persistent exposure to 0.5% halogenated (containing one or more added halogen atom) phenol triggers chemical burns and fingertip decomposition.

Lastly, the review discusses the skin reactions associated with anionic and cationic surfactants. Anionic surfactants, like sodium dodecyl benzenesulfonate, have low transdermal penetration, mainly penetrating the skin via prolonged, repeated exposure, resulting in moderate to severe erythema (rash) and rough skin. Cationic surfactants or quaternary ammonium compounds (“quats”), like benzalkonium chloride (BAC), can readily penetrate the skin, inducing skin irritation and inflammation at concentrations as low as 0.1%. Although rare, the review reports incidents of ACD at remarkably low concentrations (0.01%) and instant hypersensitivity, with hives, swelling, rash, and itchiness at higher concentrations (1 – 10%). New quat formulas, like didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC), harm the skin (in vitro) and may trigger varied hypersensitivity that induces antibody and lymphocyte cell response. Furthermore, DDAC has skin irritant and sensitizer properties potentially stronger than old formula quats like BAC.

The skin responds to numerous external stimuli that can change its morphological (shape/structure), physiological (function), and histological (tissue) properties. Some responses to external stimuli are typical, including skin exposure to sunlight (UV-light) for tanning or water for wrinkling. However, exposure to excessive stimuli, including environmental contaminants, can propagate adverse, permanent changes to the skin. Just as excessive exposure to UV rays can cause skin discoloration and cancer, prolonged dermal contact with disinfectants can cause a plethora of adverse reactions, including skin discoloration and cancer. Considering one of the most prominent routes of pesticide exposure is dermal—compromising 95 percent of all pesticide exposure incidents—and that most disinfectants are potential skin irritants and/or sensitizers (allergens), it is essential to mitigate direct skin contact with these toxic chemicals and enforce proper application protocol.

While EPA has certified a large number of disinfectants as effective against SARS-CoV-2 (List N), many of these chemicals are hazardous and weaken the respiratory, immune, and nervous systems. The most concerning disinfectants in the dermatologist review include quaternary ammonium compounds (“quats”), phenolic compounds, metal ions, chlorine and chlorine compounds, aldehydes, peroxyacetic acid (peroxygen compounds), glycolic acid (AHA), biguanide, and iodophors. All of the said chemicals reside on Beyond Pesticides’ “bad” list of “Disinfectants to Avoid.” Many of these chemical causes a long list of adverse effects—from asthma and other respiratory, problems, to endocrine disruption, infertility, and cancer.

More than a third of U.S. residents participate in high-risk COVID-19 practices, misusing toxic disinfectant cleaners and disinfectants to prevent infection. “Quats” are among some of the most harmful disinfectants, as their “long-lasting” properties have adverse impacts on human health, which has extensive documentation in literature. Some adverse effects comprise mutations, lower fertility, and increase antibiotic resistance. Overuse of quat disinfectants (containing BAC) in ICE detainment centers caused nose bleeds and other adverse health effects. Furthermore, Beyond Pesticides receives questions from concerned teachers asking for less harmful disinfectants to use in the classroom, especially as many are experiencing the adverse impacts of improper disinfectant use (i.e., chemical skin burns, respiratory issues). Since “quats” are in most disinfectant products, it remains ubiquitous in the environment as misuse continues.

Disinfectant products containing phenolic compounds are also concerning due to its wide range of adverse effects. Its derivative (OPP) is possibly carcinogenic, and exposure to phenolic compounds via skin or inhalation can trigger headaches, burning eyes, muscle tremors, skin burns, irregular heartbeat, severe injury to heart, liver, kidneys, and lungs, cancer, and even death. Although some individuals practicing high-risk COVD-19 prevention practices use quats and phenolic compounds, sodium hypochlorite (chlorine bleach) remains the most widely misused disinfectant. CDC’s report on an increase in poison control calls due to disinfectant misuse notes that a majority pertained to bleach products, a 62% increase from 2019, with a total disinfectant-related call increase by 108.8% between 2019 and 2020. Thirty-nine percent of Americans participate in high-risk COVID-19 prevention practices, washing food with bleach, and using disinfectants on bare skin, with four percent drinking or gargling with diluted bleach solutions or other disinfectants. Bleach misuse can cause respiratory problems (i.e., asthma, wheezing, coughing), skin burns, nervous system, extreme headaches, migraines, and vomiting.

Many of these toxic disinfectants are harmful via more than one exposure route as ingestion and inhalation also trigger potentially more harmful effects. Although chemical disinfectants kill viruses, bacteria, and other microbes via cell wall and protein destruction, they can also irritate and destroy the mucous membranes in animal and human respiratory and digestive tracts upon ingestion or inhalation. Occasionally, this exposure can lead to death in extreme cases. People who have a preexisting condition or are of advanced age, who may have a weakened immune or respiratory system are more vulnerable to the effects of the virus. Many of the products approved as disinfectants have negative impacts on the respiratory or immune system, thus reducing resistance to the disease. When managing viral and bacterial infections, chemicals that exacerbate the risk to vulnerable individuals are of serious concern.

The review concludes that even exposure to disinfectant compounds with non-irritant properties can allow an individual to develop sensitization overtime. Not only can frequent exposure to disinfectants trigger sensitization, but also exposure disproportionately impacts essential workers who apply disinfectants to these frequented areas. Furthermore, the combined use of various toxic disinfectants can act synergistically, enhancing adverse effects on the body. Conveniently, there are many safer disinfectants on EPA’s list N that are effective against the virus, including citric acid, ethanol, isopropanol, L-lactic acid, hydrogen peroxide, sodium bisulfate, dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, and thymol. These chemicals are present on Beyond Pesticides’ “good” list of “Disinfectants to look For” as natural-based substances tend to be safer while still effective at eliminating the virus on surfaces. However, many disinfectant products containing these active ingredients also contain other (inert) ingredients that typically make up most of the product formula. Inert ingredients can be toxic, and EPA does not require manufacturers to disclose ingredients on the product label, so manufacturers choose to participate with individual product reviews. Although EPA’s Design for the Environment Program (DfE), or Safer Choice Program, subdivides products with these active ingredients by evaluating the hazards associated with undisclosed inert ingredients, individuals should use precautions and adhere to label direction to mitigate any unintentional adverse impacts effects. 

The authors of the review provide various safety concerns to consider when using chemical disinfectants:
• Damaged skin is prone to adverse reactions from a direct absorption of disinfectants, and extra care should be given to avoid contact with disinfectants.
• While multiple disinfectants may be used together or formulated as a single product to achieve synergistic effects, an enhanced adverse effect is expected.
• Whenever dermatitis is known, disinfectants that are weak or non-irritants and sensitizers should be prioritized. Patch testing may be considered. It is important to avoid using disinfectants from a similar class that is known to be allergic to the users in consideration of a potential cross-reactivity.
• It is necessary to use protective garments during handling to avoid direct contact from spillage. Even with regular use of protective attires, unnoticeable punctures in the gloves on multiple use and the handling of disinfected surfaces can expose users to contamination. Possible interactions of disinfectants with protective garments may occur.
• For example, glutaraldehyde at 2 – 3.4% may penetrate latex gloves after 45 min and thus, butyl rubber and nitrile rubber gloves are recommended.
• Emphasis is given only on the dermatological reactions in this review but the exposure through other manners such as ocular route and inhalation is often significant and most probably toxic.
•  Chlorine compounds are known to emit chlorine gas during preparation and application. The exposure to the eyes is thus high and toxic.

As various public facilities in the U.S. begin to reopen at higher capacities, and people continue to protect themselves long-term from coronavirus, global leaders and individuals alike must decrease the reliance on toxic chemical disinfectants to safeguard against disease. Public health officials should carefully examine disinfectant practices and products to ensure chemical use does not introduce an unnecessary health threat while elevating the hazards associated with infectious disease crises. In addition to social distancing guidelines and mask requirements, the use of safer disinfection products can reduce human’s and wildlife’s vulnerability to this deadly illness.

Because widely available disinfectants are very hazardous, it is important to learn how to adopt protections from COVID-19 while not exposing yourself, family, school, or workplace to hazardous disinfectants that exacerbate the risks associated with the virus. For more information on safe disinfectants, visit Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disinfectants and Sanitizers, including a factsheet on meeting health protection needs for school reopening as schools must have adequate resources to ensure safety.

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

Source: Clinics in Dermatology

(Beyond Pesticides, October 21, 2020) Women now account for one in four agricultural jobs in the United States, and these important workers face unique challenges to their health and well-being, as outlined by a report published by Boise State University scientists. Farmworkers, often immigrants, or from communities of color, are frequently referred to as ‘invisible’, despite the essential job they perform getting food to American’s dinner tables. With their struggle and plight outside of the view of mainstream news, it is critical that U.S, residents better understand the lives they lead, and their daily obstacles, to inform how their conditions can be improved.

“In this study, we tried to understand the women that we were working with what their concerns were and what their challenges were rather than coming in and just saying what we thought the concerns were,” Cynthia Curl, PhD, Associate Professor at Boise State University, told Idaho News 6 (IN6).

To better assess the well-being of women farmworkers, researchers conducted mixed method data collection, through surveys, focus groups, and urinary analysis for pesticide body burden. Surveys were received from 70 Latina farmworkers, with 22 participating in focus groups and 11 in semi-structured interviews. An assessment of pesticide levels in the body, also known as body burden, or biomonitoring, were analyzed for 29 women. All farmworkers in this report worked in Idaho.  

Surveys found most women to be in their mid-30s, with two to three children in each household. Pay within these households is abysmal – 70% earned less than $25,000 a year, and nearly 20% made less than $10,000. Women engaged in farm work seasonally, with only 35% reporting to work in the winter. Most had worked in fields for over 10 years, and the vast majority, nearly 90%, lived in their current home for at least the last year. Despite the time spent in the region, nearly half of those surveyed indicate they do not strongly feel part of their community.

Most need to commute more than 10 miles to work, have trouble finding healthy, affordable food, and will skip meals due to financial pressure. Roughly 70% of Latina farmworkers reportedly struggle to find access to affordable health care. Over the previous year, nearly 10% applied pesticides.

“I think it’s also important to keep in mind that these challenges related to food security, providing food for their families and getting child care is in part due to their day to day life and what their work hours look like. Other parts are being in a rural place and not earning a lot of money,” said Rebecca Som Castellano, PhD, Associate Professor at Boise State University, to IN6.

Focus groups provided an opportunity for researchers to go in-depth with workers about their challenges. “It was such a beautiful conversation,” Lisa Meierotto, PhD Associate Professor at Boise State University, said to IN6. “There was one woman who reported that no one had ever asked her these things before. So just the opportunity for women to come together and talk about both the joys they had working in agriculture as well as the challenges they faced.”

Latina farmworkers told researchers how they appreciate working outside, and enjoy working with other women. “Es trabajo pesado. Pero bonito,” (it is difficult work, but beautiful work), one farmworker said, according to the report. Most farmworker women (over 90%) prioritized medical care, good schooling, and stable employment as most important for their well-being. They also discussed difficulty in working while raising young children, and inequality in domestic work, with women shouldering much of the burden for household chores and child-rearing tasks. Single farmworker mothers describe compounding problems with low pay and no support structure leading to problems in paying for rent and groceries.

Sexual harassment and assault were raised as ongoing issues for farmworker women. It was noted that many women, fearing job loss, do not report these incidents to police.

The biomonitoring survey, consisting of 29 women, analyzed urine samples for common pesticide metabolites (breakdown products) from pyrethroid insecticides, the organophosphate insecticide malathion, and the herbicide 2,4-D. Of the 29, 15 women provided two samples, one taken from mid-April to late June when pesticide use is considerably high, and another from January first to early April, when use is much lower. Detectable levels of every metabolite tested were found in every woman who provided a sample. Higher rates were found in samples measured during peak pesticide use. For the malathion metabolite, the highest detection was from women who reported applying pesticides at work but not receiving any training. The report reads, “Collectively, these results suggest that women who are applying pesticides may not be adequately protected from exposures to these chemicals.”

Dr. Curl told the Idaho Press that because women are not often considered primary pesticide applicators, “they don’t get the training and they don’t get clothes in the right size, so that is an added challenge that they may face.”

The report makes four policy recommendations based upon the information gathered. First, that funding for community health services should be continued and increased. Second, that work should be done to increase affordable childcare opportunities. Next, that policies should improve access to safe and affordable housing. Lastly, that growers must ensure all workers have personal protective equipment and are adequately trained if they are required to handle pesticides.

Farmworker safety in the workplace is not protected by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Health and Safety Administration, but by inadequate provisions in federal pesticide law that took years to update and have nonetheless been the target of the Trump administration’s dangerous deregulatory agenda. 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. 

It is unacceptable to continue business as usual. Farmworker women and their families deserve equitable, meaningful protections so that they can continue to do the work they love, safely. Tell your Congressional representative today that EPA must act to protect farmworkers. And urge them to support HR3394, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety, legislation in Congress that would put an end to child farm labor.

For more information on farmworker protections see Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage.

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

Source: Idaho News 6, Idaho Press, Research Report: Assessment of Risk Factors for Health Disparities among Latina Farm Workers

(Beyond Pesticides, October 20, 2020) The additive stress of pesticide exposure and food scarcity leads to significant declines in wild pollinator populations, according to research published by scientists at University of California, Davis. Although it is well known that insect and pollinators populations are at risk from multiple stressors related to industrial agriculture, comprehensive evaluations are a challenging scientific undertaking. “Just like humans, bees don’t face one single stress or threat,” said lead author Clara Stuligross, a PhD. candidate in ecology at UC Davis. “Understanding how multiple stressors interplay is really important, especially for bee populations in agricultural systems, where wild bees are commonly exposed to pesticides and food can be scarce.”

To better understand the interplay between these two stressors, researchers designed a field study. Mason bee pollinators were provided cages to nest in, and each stressor was separated out. One set of bees were provided high levels of food availability, while another received scant floral resources. Certain cages within each food level were treated with the product Admire Pro, a Bayer Cropscience insecticide containing the neonicotinoid imidacloprid.

Scientists found significant impacts on the factors that deal with mason bees’ reproductive success. This includes the likelihood that a female will nest, the number of offspring a female will produce, and the ratio of male to female offspring.

Taken alone, female mason bees exposed to Admire Pro (imidacloprid) were 10% less likely to nest, and when they did, produced 42% fewer offspring.  Those with access to limited food supplies produced 26% fewer offspring than those with abundant resources.  These stressors were additive, with pesticide exposure and limited floral resources combining to reduce reproduction by 57%, compared to the unexposed group.

The stressors also changed the sex of offspring that were successfully reared. Pesticide exposure led to a 33% reduction in daughters, and resource limitation caused a 48% decline. Synergism between these two stressors also acted additively. “In the bee world, males don’t matter so much,” said co-author Neal Williams, PhD, a pollination ecologist and professor in the Department of Entomology and Nematology at UC Davis. “Male numbers rarely limit population growth, but fewer females will reduce the reproductive potential of subsequent generations.”

The mechanisms that led to fewer offspring were multifaceted. Stressed mason bees slowed down the nest construction process (by 32% from the pesticide and 20% from limited food, which acted additively), and spent fewer days nesting (pesticide exposed bees started nesting 3 ½ days later than unexposed pollinators).

One critically important detail noted by scientists was that, even though all the mason bees subjected to pesticide-treated flowers displayed negative responses to exposure, only two of the eight pesticide-treated cages had flowers with detectable levels of imidacloprid. Although not imminently relevant to the present study, it highlights a particularly pernicious aspect of the pollinator crisis. The frequent inability entomologists and beekeepers have in tracing pesticide related bee-kills back to a source allows manufactures like Bayer to skirt responsibility, and spin science to blame beekeepers or factors other than pesticide exposure.

Despite the crisis fatigue that many in the United States and around the world are battling, the trouble with pollinator populations is not abating. A study published earlier this summer found that U.S. pollinator declines, particularly among native wild bees, limits crop yields. As the science shows, neonicotinoids are likely the most significant pesticide stressor for pollinators, and in a world where habitat loss and fragmentation show no sign of abating, America cannot afford to continue to subject it’s critically important wild insects to these combined threats.

The data reveal that it is simply not enough for well-intentioned advocates to plant pollinator habitat. Habitat in and of itself may assist, but it must be free of pesticides in order to truly protect wild pollinator populations. Find resources to help you plant pesticide-free pollinator habitat through the Bee Protective Habitat Guide and the Pollinator Friendly Seed and Nursery Directory. If you’re interested in advocating for real, meaningful, pollinator protection in your community, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected] for the resources and information you need to convince your local lawmakers to act.

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

Source: UC Davis press release, Proceedings of the Royal Society B

(Beyond Pesticides, October 19, 2020) The COVID-19 epidemic has made clear to the general public what we at Beyond Pesticides have been stressing since our inception—some populations have disproportionate risk of severe outcomes, exposures to toxic chemicals can affect susceptibility to disease, comorbidity increases risk, and bad government can kill you.

As Trump declares that “unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House,” we are reminded of Erik Jansson, who ran the National Network to Prevent Birth Defects and helped to convene the founding meeting of Beyond Pesticides, and took on then-Administrator of EPA Anne Gorsuch, calling her a “baby killer” because of policies that allowed exposures to toxic chemicals—exposures that endangered children and fetuses. Those were harsh words in the 1980s even when the Reagan administration’s environmental and toxics policies were tied to elevated harm to people, and children in particular. In today’s world, scientists and medical doctors are regularly linking elevated death rates from coronavirus to the federal government’s inadequate coronavirus policy and its attack on science. And, they are pointing to those in charge.

Policies and decisions under the Trump administration that threaten the health of children and the unborn include:

• COVID-19 misinformation. According to a Cornell University study, Trump is the single largest driver of misinformation around COVID, and, says Scientific American, that misinformation kills people.
• Poisoning children. In a move that challenges the preponderance of independent peer-reviewed scientific findings on children’s health, EPA stripped away protections that limit children’s exposure to class of chemicals associated with childhood cancer, autism other learning disorders, and asthma. The result of the agency’s actions will be a dramatic increase in the use of synthetic pyrethroids, insecticides found in indoor and outdoor bug sprays, bug bombs, and often used on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables.
• Ignoring the recommendations of EPA scientists to ban chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is a cholinesterase inhibitor that binds irreversibly to the receptor sites of acetylcholinesterase (AChE), an enzyme that is critical to normal nerve impulse transmission. In so doing, chlorpyrifos inactivates the enzyme, damages the central and peripheral nervous systems, and disrupts neurological activity. The compound is associated with harmful reproductive, renal, hepatic, and endocrine disrupting effects, and most notably, with neurodevelopmental impacts, especially in children. It is a neurological toxicant that damages their brains and leads to compromised cognitive function, attention deficit disorder, developmental delays, lowered IQs, and a host of other developmental and learning anomalies.
• Failure to regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). EPA Administrator Wheeler “told reporters he believes the agency’s voluntary 70-part-per-trillion health-advisory level for the chemicals is ‘a safe level for drinking water,’ despite the fact that this level is more than six times higher than what the Department of Health and Human Services considers safe.” The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCSUSA) says, “[S]cientific evidence suggests that children may be especially vulnerable to PFAS exposure. For many children, exposure begins almost immediately, first through placental transfer and then through breast milk after birth. While medical professionals still recommend breastfeeding because of its many benefits, the idea that something so natural has been tainted with harmful, manmade chemicals is disturbing.”
• Weakening air pollution regulations. Weakening air pollution regulations serves polluting industries but harms children, whose lungs are still developing and are more exposed through active, outdoor activities. Air pollution levels can also affect developing brains.
• Disregards scientific consensus on climate change. According to UCSUSA, “[T]he complete failure of this administration to accept climate science and act to reduce carbon emissions is putting our children and future generations at risk. Children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of a warming world. Extreme heat can cause pregnant women to experience abnormally high blood pressure, liver and kidney damage, and premature births, and children are more susceptible to undernutrition, dehydration, and asthma and other respiratory diseases.”
• Failure to reduce lead in drinking water and paint. There is no safe level for children of exposure to lead, which is, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), a highly potent neurotoxin that even at low doses can cause irreversible damage to the nervous system of children.
• EPA proposed lowering the age at which farmworker children are allowed to apply pesticides to 16. In 2015, the WPS was revised to set a minimum age of 18 for pesticide application. In 2018, after being sued for not implementing the minimum age requirement, EPA proposed lowering the age to 16. EPA dropped its proposal to lower the age for pesticide handlers after negotiating with Congress. Despite EPA’s reversal, a change in the statute such as that proposed in H.R. 3394 would prevent the agency or the courts from allowing 16-year-olds to be hired to apply pesticides in the future.
• Dismantling of EPA’s and other regulatory programs. The range of government decisions, or the failure to act, is causing real harm to people, and too numerous to list here, but we can add ignoring EPA scientists’ call for an asbestos ban.   

In addition to moves that directly affect the health of children, there are many more that affect the future environment—the environment in which those children will live. Several lists of Trump administration actions that hurt health and the environment are available online, including those compiled by National Geographic, The New York Times, Union of Concerned Scientists, Scientific American, and World Resources Institute. Concern for the far-reaching impacts of the Trump administration on the environment and health and its attacks on science, have prompted some organizations to take a first-ever stand on the presidential election. These include the New England Journal of Medicine and Scientific American.

Of course, these Trump administration policies are supported by the leadership in the U.S. Senate and among leaders in many state legislatures across the country. As we sit on the precipice of existential threats to health and the environment, we appreciate all those who participate in Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week. The issues of concern have been covered in our actions, where we thank all those who participate.  

NOW IT’S TIME TO VOTE. NOW IT’S TIME TO ASK OUR FAMILY, FRIENDS,  AND NEIGHBORS TO VOTE.

Remember, many rules have changed during the pandemic, making it harder to figure out how to cast your ballot. This interactive guide can help you ensure your vote is counted.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 16, 2020) The Lancet has published an article that identifies several of the multiple and interacting crises the U.S. and world face, with a focus on another “looming potential pandemic . . . [a] rise in multidrug-resistant bacterial infections that are undetected, undiagnosed, and increasingly untreatable, [whose rise] threatens the health of people in the USA and globally.” It calls on leaders in the U.S. and beyond, asking that even as they address the current coronavirus pandemic, they also attend to the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) problem, which is a growing threat to public health. The co-authors outline a number of strategies for progress on AMR, including banning of medically important antibiotics in agribusiness, and promoting consumer, and supplier and private sector, awareness and action on food choices. Beyond Pesticides endorses these strategies, but insists that a genuine solution would include the transition to organic agriculture, not least for the health benefits it would provide.

The introduction to the article adds another crisis layer — the climate emergency — and asserts that any resolutions of these crises will, or will not, unfold in a political context: “The outcome of the U.S. election will have far-reaching consequences for planetary health.” Beyond Pesicides monitors and writes about all these issues: how agricultural uses of antibiotics fuel antimicrobial resistance; the contributions of chemical- intensive farming to the climate emergency; factors that exacerbate risks of COVID-19; and the record of the Trump administration that makes the coming election one with very high stakes for human and environmental health. (See more examples here, here, here, and here.)

The growing threat of antibiotic resistance is a major healthcare issue. Beyond Pesticides has written, “Many bacterial infections are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, resulting in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, the need for more costly or hazardous medications, and the inability to treat life-threatening infections. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of antibiotic use. Bacteria evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance.”

The significant role of antibiotic use — in crop, livestock, and even aquaculture production — in the development of antimicrobial resistance has been demonstrated repeatedly. In addition, some pesticides may induce antibiotic resistance in particular pathogens, as dicamba and glyphosate do in certain strains of E. coli and Salmonella eterica. Further, antibiotics used on livestock, which through their waste get broadcast into the environment and onto crops via use of manure as fertilizer, reach consumers in food products. These antimicrobials disrupt gut microbiota that play a role in mediating immune response to pathogens; thus, they may represent an additional risk in the coronavirus pandemic.

Multi-drug-resistant bacterial infections currently claim 700,000 lives annually across the world; such deaths are projected, by 2050, to reach approximately 10 million people per year and cost $100 trillion to the global economy, primarily through loss of those people’s productivity. The U.S. sees 35,000 deaths each year among 2.8 million such infections across the population; this level of morbidity tallies to $20 million in healthcare costs.

The co-authors also discuss how the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) phenomenon that underlies this rise can exacerbate COVID-19 risks. They observe that, across five countries, COVID-19 diagnoses are associated with bacterial infections (with 3.5% diagnosed concurrently and 14.3% post-COVID-19); the prevalence is higher in patients who require intensive care. A cited study from summer 2020 shows that a shocking 72% of COVID patients received antibiotics even when they were not clinically indicated. This misuse of antibiotics absent clinical need is a phenomenon understood to contribute to the problem of AMR. The authors note: “AMR might worsen under COVID-19 due to the overuse of antibiotics in humans, continuing misuse in agriculture, and the dearth of antimicrobials in the development pipeline.”

Those misuses in agriculture include antibiotics used to control certain bacterial diseases in plant agriculture (dominantly, oxytetracycline and streptomycin), but plant uses are vanishingly small compared to those in animal operations. In conventional livestock farming, antibiotics are not used primarily to treat bacterial infections, although that does happen (and products from those animals can go to market). In such operations, antibiotics are misused largely as additives to animal feed to ward off any potential infections and to promote unnaturally rapid growth (the latter of which translates to higher profits). Both of these objectives function as compensation for the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which scientists believe will contribute to the next pandemic. Use of antibiotics is prohibited in all certified organic production; though the standards of the National Organic Program require that sick animals be treated, meat and other products from such animals cannot be sold with the imprimatur of the Certified Organic designation.

In 2019, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) did an AMR threat assessment that showed fewer deaths attributable to AMR compared with 2013, but also, wild increases in several specific, severe, multi-drug-resistant bacterial infections. Examples include a 315% increase in erythromycin-resistant group A. Streptococcus, a 124% increase in drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and a 50% increase in extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. (Translation: a 50% rise in the presence of an enzyme that confers resistance to common antibiotics such as penicillins and cephalosporins; infections with these enterobacteria often have poor prognoses.)

Unfortunately, the political landscape has a huge impact on these emerging risks. The forward-thinking planning of federal agencies under previous administrations has been walloped by the Trump administration’s devotion to agrochemical and pharmaceutical (and other) industrial interests. As the subject paper lays out, the Obama administration issued a comprehensive plan, in 2015, establishing milestones to reduce antibiotic misuse and accelerate research and development of antimicrobials and vaccines.

Yet those goals have suffered during the past three-plus years. An FDA (Food and Drug Administration) ban on the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in livestock, which went into effect on January 1, 2017 (just before the inauguration), was confounded later that year by USDA’s (U.S. Department of Agriculture’s) rejection of the World Health Organization’s guidance on limiting antibiotic use in animal feed. USDA asserted that treating, controlling, and preventing” [emphasis by Beyond Pesticides] disease under veterinary supervision constitutes “appropriate use” — undercutting the ban on antibiotics for growth promotion because, when used in feed for disease prevention, antibiotics also promote growth.

The federal government then went on to slash budgets for hospital-based AMR programs; USDA removed federal oversight of meat inspection at pork processing plants; and EPA (the Environmental Protection Agency) “condoned expansion of medically important antibiotics such as streptomycin and oxytetracycline as pesticides to maximize crop yields.” Every one of these actions mitigates against solving the AMR problem, to the detriment of public health.

There are additional examples of the Trump administration working against the health of the population. Beyond Pesticides wrote, earlier this year, that the “Trump Administration worked [in 2018] on behalf of a chemical industry trade group [CropLife America] to weaken international guidelines aimed at slowing the crisis. Emails obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through the Freedom of Information Act show that officials at . . . USDA worked to downplay the role of industrial agriculture and pesticide use in drug-resistant infections.”

Further, the Daily News Blog entry explained, “Many of the same antibiotics and fungicides used to manage infections on crops are the same used for human medicine. While overuse in the medical field remains a concern, agricultural applications, which likely occur more frequently and on a larger scale, are major contributors to the crisis. . . . A 2018 study published in Nature Sustainability found that Earth has surpassed ‘planetary boundaries’ for pesticide and antimicrobial resistance. ‘Without new approaches, going to hospital in the future will increasingly become a gamble. More patients will get unlucky, and become infected with untreatable or hard to treat bacteria. This is an urgent risk to human society,’ study coauthor Søgaard Jørgensen, PhD, said.”

Among this paper’s recommendations are that the U.S. revive its 2015 AMR National Action Plan by: (1) permanently banning the use of medically important antibiotics in agribusiness; (2) supporting antibiotic stewardship programs; (3) encouraging the development of new antibiotics through bipartisan initiatives (e.g., the DISARM Act and the PASTEUR Act); and (4) investing in innovation to identify and evaluate other anti-infectives. The National Action Plan, which has been updated for the 2020­–2025 period, adds to the original, and takes a One Health approach (as adopted by the UN Interagency Coordination Group on AMR), which recognizes that the health of humans, animals, plants, and the environment are all interrelated.

The researchers conclude that progress on AMR should be framed in the context of pandemic preparedness, and guided, in part, by lessons from COVID-19, to wit: healthcare infrastructure and incidence surveillance must be strengthened, and policies put in place that ensure equitable access, nationally and globally, to diagnostics, antimicrobials, and vaccines. The authors’ perspective is that the U.S. cannot tackle this problem unilaterally, but ought to participate actively in international efforts to coalesce around a set of global solutions and to speed up action on AMR.

They recommend that the U.S. support the “multilateral global architecture” needed, which includes WHO, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Organization for Animal Health. Failure to do so, they assert, would undermine decades of medical and public health advances, adding that “The COVID-19 pandemic is a wake-up call that global collaboration is the most effective way to tackle global health threats.” Seen through the lens of the coming U.S. Presidential election, the possibility of progress on these would appear possible with one outcome, and at grave risk with the other.

Beyond Pesticides endorses a ban on the use of antibiotics in agriculture of all kinds. Medical and veterinary overuse and misuse contribute to the AMR problem, certainly, but agricultural uses play a disturbing part in this unfolding crisis, which will get worse until it is more effectively addressed. The public must create upward pressure on legislators to become active on this issue; please consider advocating with them, at both federal and state levels, on this issue. If anything has been learned through the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, it might be that action deferred increases the magnitude of the calamity.

Sources: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32063-8/fulltext?dgcid=raven_jbs_etoc_email and https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2932063-8

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 15, 2020) A review of scientific literature on the correlation between respiratory diseases and pesticides exposure—published in the journal Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine (AAEM), “Influence of pesticides on respiratory pathology—a literature review”—finds that exposure to pesticides increases incidents of respiratory pathologies (i.e., asthma, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]—or chronic bronchitis). The review by researchers at the Iuliu Hatieganu’ University of Medicine and Pharmacy Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, looks at how pesticide exposure adversely propagates and reinforces respiratory diseases in humans. This review highlights the significance of evaluating how pesticide exposure impacts respiratory function, especially since contact with pesticides can happen at any point in the production, transportation preparation, or application treatment process. Researchers in the study note, “Knowing and recognizing these respiratory health problems of farmers and their families, and also of [pesticide] manipulators/retailers, are essential for early diagnosis, appropriate treatment, and preventive measures.” This study results are critically important at a time when exposure to respiratory toxicants increases vulnerability to Covid-19, which attacks the respiratory system, among other organic systems.

The respiratory system is essential to human survival, regulating gas exchange (oxygen-carbon dioxide) in the body to balance acid and base tissue cells for normal function. However, damage to the respiratory system can cause a plethora of issues—from asthma and bronchitis to oxidative stress that triggers the development of extra-respiratory manifestations like rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease. Therefore, the rise in respiratory illnesses over the last three decades years is highly concerning, especially as research fails to identify an exact cause for the increase in respiratory disease cases.

Many researchers, including those in this study, suggest an increase in environmental pollutants like pesticides may be responsible for the influx of respiratory diseases. Although numerous studies detail the impacts of direct occupational pesticide exposure on human health, very few investigate how pesticides contribute to respiratory illnesses along the pesticide supply chain—from manufacturing, transportation, and application to cleaning and handling. Additionally, the review details the impact pesticide applications have on nearby communities. Literature reviews like these are significant as it encompasses all previous research on a topic and establishes a platform for current research basis.

In September 2019, researchers searched the ‘Pub Med’ and ‘Web of Science’ online database to find peer-reviewed scientific articles that investigate the relationship between pesticide exposure and respiratory diseases. To identify which studies are eligible for inclusion in the review, researchers used a set list of criteria including classification of pesticides (e.g., group of organisms fought against, mode of action, chemical nature, physical state, and toxicity) and categories of commonly used pesticides.

This review details observations concerning the involvement of pesticides on human health, including exposure, at-risk individuals, poisonings, respiratory impacts, and action mechanisms on the respiratory system. Additionally, the review compares these generalities to respiratory diseases and manifestations historically associated with pesticide exposure.

In September 2019, researchers searched the ‘Pub Med’ and ‘Web of Science’ online database to find peer-reviewed scientific articles that investigate the relationship between pesticide exposure and respiratory diseases. To identify which studies are eligible for inclusion in the review, researchers used a set list of criteria including classification of pesticides (e.g., group of organisms fought against, mode of action, chemical nature, physical state, and toxicity) and categories of commonly used pesticides.

This review details observations concerning the involvement of pesticides on human health, including exposure, at-risk individuals, poisonings, respiratory impacts, and action mechanisms on the respiratory system. Additionally, the review compares these generalities to respiratory diseases and manifestations historically associated with pesticide exposure.

A plethora of studies finds a high positive correlation between pesticide exposure and various respiratory pathologies (asthma, COPD, lung cancer) and manifestations (coughing, allergic rhinitis, laryngeal irritation, wheezing, dyspnea[hyperventilating]).

Lung cancer has a positive association with the total number of days and intensity of pesticide exposure. Prolonged exposure (over 56 days) to the insecticide chlorpyrifos more than doubles the risk of developing lung cancer. The insecticide diazinon also shows a strong correlation between exposure and lung cancer incidences. Additionally, normal to high exposure to the herbicide metolachlor and high levels of exposure to the herbicide pendimethalin increase the risk of developing lung cancer. More than 109 days of carbofuran exposure, one of the most toxic carbamate pesticides, leads to a 3-fold increase in lung cancer incidences. Intensive exposure to the herbicide dicamba, even at low levels, increases lung cancer incidence. Occupational exposure to chlorophenol-related compound (a group of pesticides contaminated with the highly toxic chemical dioxin) during the manufacturing process has a strong association with lung cancer. Chemicals with a weak but a positive association with lung cancer are malathion, atrazine, coumaphos, S-ethyl-N, N-dipropylthiocarbamate, alachlor, trifluralin, and chlorothalonil.

The risk of asthma incidences is seasonal with the spring having greater incidences due to the influx of pesticide use during the springtime. Moreover, those handling pesticides without protective equipment have a much greater risk of developing asthma after exposure. Pesticides that can cause laryngeal and bronchial spasm are primarily organophosphates and carbamates and are known to cause asthmatic episodes.

The review also finds a positive association between sarcoidosis development (a rare disease that causes a group of immune cells to form lumps) and occupational exposure to pesticides. Furthermore, the risk of developing Farmer’s lung—a common allergic disease induced by inhaling biological dust, and a contributor to respiratory morbidity among farmers—increases with exposure to pesticides. These pesticides include dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, lindane, and aldicarb, as well as organochlorine and carbamate pesticides.

The review finds an association between deteriorating lung function and exposure to organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides, alongside other pesticides. Carbamate and organophosphorus insecticides are cholinesterase inhibitors that catalyze the decomposition of select neurotransmitters. Organophosphorus insecticides exposure—even at low levels—can increase pro-inflammatory cytokine production leading to chronic inflammation that alters respiratory function and causes pulmonary fibrosis. Additionally, exposures to organophosphorus and carbamate pesticides have a significant association with both obstructive and restrictive respiratory anomalies. Chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dichlorvos, and malathion, in addition to carbaryl and permethrin, can increase the risk of allergic rhinitis. Furthermore, exposure to glyphosate herbicides and petroleum oil may cause the recurrence of rhinitis episodes.

Common respiratory manifestations among occupational exposure to pesticides are dyspnea, coughing, and expectoration, with coughing being significantly higher in agricultural workers than nonagricultural. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, including dimethoate, malathion, benomyl, mancozeb, and aldicarb, are the cause of many respiratory manifestations. Occupational and nonoccupational exposure to fumigants, such as methyl bromide, can cause respiratory manifestations (e.g., dyspnea, cough, respiratory irritation, and pulmonary lesions) in conjunction with local or systemic systems like fatigue, headache, dizziness, vomiting, abdominal pain, seizures, and impairment of the function of other organs.

Nonoccupational exposure to pesticides from residencies near pesticide processing plants, contact with pesticide-tainted clothes and tools, and household with improper storage and use of pesticides are at greater risk of respiratory illness, including asthma (ranking first) from chronic exposure, and upper and lower airway obstruction from acute exposure.

Lastly, the manipulation of pesticide mixtures has a strong association with dermal and respiratory systems, increasing oxidative stress biomarkers. Respiratory retailers are eight-fold more likely to experience respiratory distress than the general population, especially for retailers that sell manipulated organophosphorus compounds.

The connection between pesticides and associated respiratory risks is nothing new, as a plethora of studies links pesticide use and residue to various respiratory illnesses. Organophosphate pesticides like chlorpyrifos and carbamate pesticides like carbofuran have the most influence on respiratory pathology. Both chemical classes have a similar mode of action as cholinesterase inhibitors, which means that they bind to receptor sites for the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, or AChE, which is essential to normal nerve impulse transmission. In binding to those receptor sites, cholinesterase inhibitors inactivate AChE and preventing the clearing of acetylcholine. The buildup of acetylcholine can lead to acute impacts, such as uncontrolled, rapid twitching of some muscles, paralyzed breathing, convulsions, and, in extreme cases, death. The compromise of neural transmission can have broad systemic impacts on the function of multiple body systems.

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosate insecticide originating from World War II nerve agents. In addition to being highly toxic to terrestrial and aquatic organisms, human exposure to chlorpyrifos can induce endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, fetal defects, neurotoxic damage, and kidney/liver damage. Although chlorpyrifos remains in use in the U.S., states, including Hawaii, California, New York, and Maryland, plan to phase out most of its agricultural use. This phasing out follows after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) negotiated the chemical’s withdrawal from most of the residential market because of neurotoxic effects on children in 2000.

Carbofuran is an carbamate insecticide highly toxic to humans and other animals, killing birds that ingest only one pesticide-treated granule seed. This pesticide can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and difficulty breathing. A 2009 action to cancel carbofuran food uses ultimately led to the chemical’s ban in the U.S., with EPA risk assessment finding no uses of carbofuran are eligible for reregistration due to its adverse impacts to humans and the environment. Unfortunately, as seen in Maryland, irresponsible and illegal use of pesticides is still responsible for primary and secondary poisonings of wildlife, as some farmers continue to use the poison illegally to kill larger predators and pests, including foxes, coyotes, and raccoons.

Although occupational exposure to both organophosphate and carbamate insecticides have adverse impacts in the respiratory system, these chemical classes also impact individuals non-occupationally, via pesticides drift or contamination. Communities adjacent to chemical-intensive farms or pesticide manufacturing plants experience higher levels of pesticide exposure than neighborhoods that are not. Furthermore, children living in homes near greenhouses which use these insecticides have abnormal nervous system function, including adverse pulmonary effects like asthma.

Previous studies document a significant association between pesticide exposure to chlorpyrifos and carbofuran and lung cancer. The connection between lung cancer and pesticides is of specific concern, as etiological studies often attribute lung cancer to genetics or cigarette smoke and overlook the lung cancer risks associated with pesticide exposure via inhalation of powders, airborne droplets, or vapors. Some studies attribute pesticides—labeled hazardous to inhale—sprayed on tobacco plants to lung cancer and the related mechanisms that cause lung cancer. Upon inhalation, pesticide particles enter the respiratory tract, and the lungs readily absorb the particles into the bloodstream.

Working in close contact with pesticides throughout one’s lifetime increases the risk of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and other respiratory issues like asthma. Just as lung cancer, etiological studies often attribute COPD risk to genetics or cigarette smoking, with cigarette smoke exposure causing eight out of ten cases of COPD. However, the increasing rate of COPD incidences indicates an external cause of COPD development besides the aforementioned risk factors, including poverty, dietary factors, and occupational exposure to chemicals like pesticides. Furthermore, studies find pesticide exposure not only triggers asthma attacks, but also causes asthma as exposure to insecticides before the age of five can increase in the risk of asthma diagnosis, with toddlers twice as likely to become asthmatic. Although significant disparities in asthma morbidity and mortality disproportionately impact low-income populations, people of color, and children living in inner cities, COPD has the potential to cause the same disparity in the future.

In the U.S., over 25 million people live with asthma, over 14 million individuals live with COPD, and millions of individuals live with lung cancer. The increasing rate of respiratory pathology, since the 1980s, demonstrates a need for better environmental policies and protocols surrounding contaminants like pesticides. Although EPA administers the Clean Air Act to regulate air pollution and reduce environmental contamination levels in the atmosphere, the Trump administration is dismantling many environmental regulations, putting air quality and human health at risk. Considering respiratory diseases represent a major health issue for agricultural workers—who often experience pesticides exposure at higher rates due to occupation—it is essential to understand the association between pesticide exposure and respiratory pathology, or the study of causes and effects of respiratory diseases. Furthermore, with a new report finding an association between air pollution and higher death rates (9%) related to the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), global leaders must eliminate excessive pesticides use to mitigate the impacts respiratory diseases have on human health.

The connection between common and chronic respiratory diseases and exposure to pesticides continues to strengthen, despite efforts to restrict individual chemical exposure or mitigate chemical risks using risk assessment-based policy. Although the etiology of respiratory diseases encompasses several circumstances, including smoking patterns, poverty, occupation, and diet, studies show that relative exposure to chemicals like pesticides can occur within each circumstance, making chemical exposure ubiquitous. Additionally, pesticide drift is an omnipresent issue impacting communities surrounding farming operations, and dust may harm humans, plants, and aquatic systems.

It is vital to understand how exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing acute and chronic respiratory problems, especially if the Trump administrations’ regulatory rollbacks increase the persistence of toxic chemicals in the environment. Beyond Pesticides tracks the most recent studies related to pesticide exposure through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. For more information on the multiple harms of pesticide exposure, see PIDD pages on asthma/respiratory effects, cancer, endocrine disruption, and other diseases. Additionally, buying, growing, and supporting organic can help eliminate the extensive use of pesticides in the environment. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for chemical-intensive agricultural practices. Regenerative organic agriculture revitalizes soil health through organic carbon sequestration while reducing pests and generating a higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers who grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source(s): AAEM