(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2020) The Mexican government announced late last month that it plans to phase out the importation and use of glyphosate in the country over the next four years. The announcement means that Mexico will join other countries, such as Luxembourg, Vietnam, Germany in prohibiting the chemical and the toxic consumer products, like Roundup, that contain it as an ingredient. International watchdogs are keeping an eye on reactions from the United States, which in recent years has worked to intervene in other countries’ decision-making over toxic pesticides.

The government’s announcement cites the Precautionary Principle as part of its decision-making. According to the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, “Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” In the case of glyphosate, there is strong evidence, per a 2015 review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), that glyphosate is carcinogenic. Since 2015, several more publications have added weight to glyphosate’s link to cancer. A February 2018 meta-analysis finds “a compelling link between exposures to GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] and increased risk of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma]. A February 2019 University of Washington study found that glyphosate increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by as much as 41%.

Víctor M. Toledo, Mexico’s Minister of the Environment, said in a press release that the effort is part of decision steps to transform the county’s food system to make it “safer, healthier and more respectful of the environment (más seguro, más sano y respetuoso con el medio ambiente).” The country will be analyzing alternatives to glyphosate, importantly, focusing in management experiences and practies used by farmers in indigenous communities for thousands of years.  

Cancer is far from the only health impact demonstrably linked to exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide formulations. glyphosate (and the adjuvant ingredients in formulations) is also linked to endocrine disruption, reproduction harm, and renal and hepatic damage, and toxicity to fish and other aquatic organisms. A 2018 Washington State University study determined that residents living near areas treated with the herbicide are one-third more likely to die prematurely from Parkinson’s disease. Studies also find that glyphosate is linked to multi-generational adverse health effects, including prostate, ovarian, and kidney diseases.

The Mexican government will launch an educational campaign to educate residents on the health risks involved with the use of glyphosate products. Minister Toledo sums of the concerns well, noting that this is a problem everyone must act on; “beyond productivity, there is human and environmental health (más allá de la productividad, está la salud humana y Ambiental),” he said.

The U.S. government has acted antagonistically to countries that have begun to phase out toxic pesticides like glyphosate. Last month, the U.S., alongside the Bolsonaro government in Brazil, launched complaints against Thailand with the World Trade Organization after the country added paraquat and chlorpyrifos to its list of hazardous substances. Due to U.S. pressure, Thailand had already delayed implementation and dropped its intent to include glyphosate on its hazard list.

As Mexico will show over the next decade, there are readily available alternatives to glyphosate that do not put human health and the environment at unnecessary risk. Organic practices represent a path forward that eschews the use not only of glyphosate but the myriad of other toxic pesticides registered by environmental agencies. See Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture program page for more information on why supporting organic is the right choice.  

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

Source: Medtruth, Mexican Government press release (translated page)

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2020) Soil is central to organic production. Therefore, hydroponic operations should not be considered eligible for organic certification, and the National Organic Program (NOP) must take a clear position in opposition to hydroponics and other non-soil-based methods in organic production, including containers. Organic farmers and consumers strongly agree that organic production must be soil-based. 

Tell NOP hydroponics is not organic! Educate your congressional representatives and senators.

NOP authorizes the certification of hydroponic operations as organic. This undermines the authenticity of organic farming and creates unequal competition, market instability, and consumer distrust in organic certification.

Organic farming and soil are inextricably linked. The microorganisms in healthy soils interact in a symbiotic manner with plant roots, strengthening the plant, enabling it to resist diseases and facilitating water and mineral uptake. The essence of organic production is maintaining and enhancing the organic matter content of soil by relying on environmentally beneficial methods such as green manure, crop rotation, and biological pest management.

On March 3, 2020, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit challenging the USDA’s decision to allow hydroponics operations to be certified organic. Organic farmers and consumers believe that the organic label means two things: grown in the soil and farmed in a manner that builds soil biology and the natural cycling of nutrients. Hydroponics meet neither of these requirements and involves methods of growing crops that is dependent on soluble synthetic nutrients.

Soil Ecology Supports Healthy Crops
Historically, perhaps the most important principle of organic production is the “Law of Return,” which, together with the rule “Feed the soil, not the plant” and the promotion of biodiversity, provide the ecological basis for organic production and land management. Together these three principles describe a production system that works with natural systems.

The Law of Return says that we must return to the soil what we take from the soil. Non-crop organic matter (residue) is returned directly or through composting plant materials or manures. To the extent that the cash crop removes nutrients, they must be replaced by cover crops, crop rotation, or additions of off-site materials, when necessary. 

Although some hydroponic producers may compost residues, they do not return the residues to the hydroponic system and close the loop. Inputs of organic matter reported by hydroponic practitioners are produced off-site, with no return to their production system. While most organic growers depend on some off-site inputs, most of the fertility in a soil-based system comes from practices that recycle organic matter produced on-site.

The cycling of organic matter and on-site production of nutrients—as from nitrogen-fixing bacteria and microorganisms that make nutrients in native mineral soil fractions available to plants—is essential to organic production. The Law of Return is not about feeding plants, but about conserving the biodiversity of the soil-plant-animal ecological community.

“Feed the soil, not the plant” reminds us that the soil is a living superorganism that supports plant life as part of an ecological community. We do not feed soil organisms in isolation, to have them process nutrients for crop plants; we feed the soil to support a healthy soil ecology, which is the basis of terrestrial life. Feeding the soil is intended to support the soil ecosystem is intrinsically counter to a hydroponic system. Hydroponics, in bypassing the soil ecology, rely on added plant nutrients that feed the plants.

Additionally, creating a structure to house hydroponic goes against the legal requirement in federal organic law: “The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion.” 

Biodiversity Conservation
Finally, biological diversity is important to the health of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems. The definition of “organic production” in the federal organic regulations requires the conservation of biodiversity. As stated in the NOP Guidance on Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation (NOP 5020),

The preamble to the final rule establishing the NOP explains: “The use of ‘conserve’ [in the definition of organic production] establishes that the producer must initiate practices to support biodiversity and avoid, to the extent practicable, any activities that would diminish it. Compliance with the requirement to conserve biodiversity requires that a producer incorporate practices in his or her organic system plan that are beneficial to biodiversity on his or her operation.” (76 FR 80563) 

Biodiversity promotes ecological balance, which protects farms from outbreaks of damaging insects and disease. It supports the health of the soil through the progression of the seasons and stresses associated with weather and farming. It supports our health by offering a diversity of foods. On a soil-based organic farm, many practices support biodiversity—from crop rotations to interplanting to devoting space to hedgerows and other non-productive uses. Many of these practices can and should be used by farmers producing food in greenhouses. However, hydroponics is considered a monocultural environment that does not support biodiversity. Thus, it is not enough for a hydroponics producer to say it is not diminishing soil and plant biodiversity—the operation must take active steps to support biodiversity.

Organic production allows exceptions to soil-grown produce like mushrooms, which grow on ecologically appropriate substrate such as manure or wood and sprouts. Sprouts are not required to be grown in soil because sprout production is a way of processing seeds. However, these exceptions imply that organic production is soil-based.

The ecological system of a hydroponic nutrient system is more like a fermentation chamber—a means of processing plant nutrients—than the soil ecosystem of an organic farm.

Integral to the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) is the understanding that soil is alive, not merely a medium for supporting plants, as is the case, to a large extent, in  “conventional” chemical-intensive agriculture. “Conventional” farmers pour poisonous synthetic fertilizers into soil without the protecting the ecological community. Interestingly, in defining organic in OFPA, organic producers compared conventional agriculture to hydroponics because it bypasses the soil. 

Practitioners of hydroponics have learned the value of biology in their nutrient solutions. However, the biology of fermentation tanks is not “soil ecology,” although it is merely an artificial mimic of soil ecology and a reductionist approach to manipulating nature.

Threatening the Value of the Organic Label
Organic farmers and consumers view the current interpretation of organic as a threat to the integrity of the organic seal, impacting every organic farmer and consumer in every state. The consideration of hydroponic production in organic is an issue that impacts every aspect of the organic industry. Members of the organic industry consistently rank this issue, maintaining consumer’s confidence in the organic seal, as a top priority and mandatory to their success.

However, it is critical that we address any compliance limitations of organic certification systems when it occurs and ensure corrective action in a timely fashion with full transparency. Without this kind of response, public trust in the organic food label will suffer dramatically. Additionally, to the extent that the enforcement system is known to be highly rigorous, it will decrease the likelihood of aberrant behavior.

One factor leading consumers to purchase organic produce is its perceived greater nutrient value. Research supports that perception—showing that nitrate concentrations in leafy vegetables are significantly different for hydroponic, conventional, and in-ground organic systems, with desired nutrients generally more concentrated in organic vegetables.

Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, the organic industry was meeting with congressional staff to explain its position. We need your help to continue that effort as your outreach to NOP and your elected official is critical to our success.

Because of the high turnover of congressional staff, groups opposing this policy need to continuously educate our elected officials on this issue.

We urge you to take action by sending a letter to NOP and your congressional representative. 

Tell NOP hydroponics is not organic! Educate your congressional representatives and senators.

Thank you!
The Beyond Pesticides Tea

Letter to Congress

I am writing to request congressional oversight of the National Organic Program (NOP) on a matter that goes to the core of organic production—soil. In allowing USDA organic labeling of hydroponically grown food, NOP is violating the law.

Soil is central to organic production. Therefore, NOP must take a clear position in opposition to hydroponics and other non-soil-based methods in organic production, including containers. Organic farmers and consumers believe that the organic label means two things: grown in the soil and farmed in a manner that builds soil biology and the natural cycling of nutrients. Organic farmers and consumers strongly agree that the organic label requires two things: grown in the soil and farmed in a manner that builds soil biology and the natural cycling of nutrients. A failure by NOP to enforce these requirements in federal law will ultimately have dire adverse economic consequences for the organic market.

NOP authorizes the certification of hydroponic operations as organic. This undermines the authenticity of organic farming and creates unequal competition, market instability and consumer distrust in organic certification. On March 3, 2020, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit challenging the USDA’s decision to allow hydroponics operations to be certified organic.

Organic farming and soil are inextricably linked. The microorganisms in healthy soils interact in a symbiotic manner with plant roots, strengthening the plant, enabling it to resist diseases and facilitating the water and mineral uptake. The essence of organic production is maintaining and enhancing the organic matter content of soil by relying on methods such as green manure, crop rotation, and biological pest control.

Historically, perhaps the most important principle of organic production is the “Law of Return,” which, together with the rule “Feed the soil, not the plant” and the promotion of biodiversity, provide the ecological basis for organic production. Together these three principles describe a production system that works with natural systems.

The Law of Return says that we must return to the soil what we take from the soil. Non-crop organic matter (residue) is returned directly or through composting plant materials or manures. To the extent that the cash crop depletes soil, organic production systems replace them with cover crops, crop rotation, or additions of off-site materials, when necessary. Hydroponic producers do not return the residues to the hydroponic system, closing the loop.

“Feed the soil, not the plant” reminds us that the soil is a living superorganism that supports plant life as part of an ecological community. We do not feed soil organisms in isolation, to have them process nutrients for crop plants; we feed the soil to support a healthy soil ecology, which is the basis of terrestrial life. Feeding the soil has a positive impact on the ecosystem, which cannot be done with hydroponics. Hydroponics rely on added nutrients, added to feed the plants, not the ecosystem.

Finally, biological diversity is important to the health of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems, protecting farms from outbreaks of damaging insects and disease. The definition of “organic production” in the organic regulations requires the conservation of biodiversity—the producer must “initiate practices to support biodiversity and avoid, to the extent practicable, any activities that would diminish it.”

Organic farmers and consumers view allowing hydroponics in organic as a threat to the integrity of the organic seal, impacting every organic farmer and consumer in every state.

Thank you for pushing for congressional oversight to protect public trust in the organic label and ensure the growth of the organic market.

Letter to USDA

It is absolutely essential to any government or private standard setting process that enforcement and compliance operate effectively and is trusted by the public. Without an effective enforcement system, the value of the USDA organic label is undermined in the market. Whether related to imported or domestically grown food, enforcement against fraud and an assurance of compliance with organic standards is critical to the ongoing growth and stability of the organic market. Fraud is a problem when, for example, crops are grown with prohibited inputs, when livestock do not get the required access to pasture, and when crops are produced in artificial media and, therefore, not in compliance with organic standards.

Consumer trust and organic farmer and handler investments are jeopardized by ineffective oversight and enforcement of organic standards by USDA. USDA and accredited organic certifying agents are generally meeting expectations, but the enforcement process has fallen short in several instances, particularly in allowing hydroponic production, and additional actions are needed to safeguard the integrity of the organic label.

Contrary to a 2010 recommendation by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), the National Organic Program (NOP) has been allowing hydroponics operations to be certified as organic. This reversal of an NOSB decision without any new scientific information undermines the NOSB process and will have a devastating long-term impact on the credibility of the organic label. In response, organic stakeholders, including growers, consumers, processors, and retailers, have come together around an add-on label that will inform consumers that their organic food has been grown in the soil and managed in accordance with the intent and spirit of Organic Foods Production Act, which requires that organic growers “foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” This add-on label will provide transparency so that consumers can be assured that farmers are engaged in the practices of soil-based agriculture, which are foundational to the principles and values integral to the law.

From its very beginnings, the organic sector has been driven by an alliance of farmers and consumers who defined the organic standards as a holistic approach to protecting health and the environment, with a deep conviction that food production could operate in sync with nature and be mindful of its interrelationship with the natural world—protecting and enhancing the quality of air, water, land, and food. These standards, integral to organic, certainly do not preclude the adoption of other methods that can identify themselves as offering other assets, but adherence to the principles of organic cannot be compromised if we are to sustain the organic market in the future. So, from this perspective, we have a serious fraud and enforcement problem with the current allowance of certified organic hydroponic production.

Please tell certifiers that hydroponic production cannot be certified organic.

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter of public trust in the organic label.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2020) A study published in June 2020 in Environmental Health journal is especially concerning for people who become, or plan to become, pregnant. It concludes that personal, agricultural, and household exposures to pesticides may increase the risk of a relatively rare fetal disorder called “holoprosencephaly.” The study finds that pre-conception and the first few weeks of pregnancy are the most vulnerable periods during which exposure can increase risk of this disorder, in which the embryo’s forebrain fails to develop into two distinct hemispheres. The study’s results reinforce Beyond Pesticide’s long-standing warnings of the dangers of pesticides to children and the necessity of shifting to a precautionary approach to the introduction and use of synthetic pesticides (and other chemicals) across all sectors. The importance of this shift is perhaps no more poignantly illustrated than in the impacts that pesticide exposure can have on new life.

The study, conducted from 2016 through 2019 by researchers from NIH (the U.S. National Institutes of Health) and the University of Wisconsin–Madison, is a case-control study — one that compares subjects who have a disease or disorder with “controls” who do not have the disorder, comparing the frequency of exposure to a particular risk factor in each group so as to determine the incidence relationship between the risk factor and the disease. In this research, the risk factor is pesticide exposure, and the disorder is holoprosencephaly (HPE).

The 91 subjects for the study were found through the National Human Genome Research Institute’s ongoing research projects on HPE. The 56 “controls” are children with Williams-Beuren Syndrome, a genetically caused disorder unrelated to HPE, but which is also characterized by congenital malformations (e.g., by pre- and post-natal growth delays, short stature, varying degrees of mental deficiency, and distinctive facial features). Subjects in both groups were predominantly from the U.S.

HPE is the most common malformation of the forebrain in humans, occurring in one of every 8,000 live births. The prognosis and lifespan of fetuses with HPE vary significantly, and depend to great extent on the severity of the abnormalities. Most do not survive even to birth; in less-severe cases, the brain may be more-nearly normal and those children may have a typical life expectancy, though the disorder is often accompanied by developmental delays. Many children born with holoprosencephaly have facial abnormalities (of eyes, nose, and lips), and some may exhibit endocrine dysfunction.

As with other congenital abnormalities, HPE’s etiology is complex and includes both genetic and environmental factors, which can interact to affect neurodevelopment. Only 25% of HPE cases exhibit mutations in one of the four genes most commonly associated with development of the condition. Other, non-genetic causes are thought to include environmental teratogens — agents that can cause malformations of an embryo. As the study authors write, “Epidemiologic and animal studies suggest that the interactions between genetic and environmental factors underlie the etiologic heterogeneity and complexity of human birth defects.” (A sample of congenital defects associated with pesticide exposure is available on Beyond Pesticides Pesticide-Induced Diseases: Birth/Fetal Defects website page.)

The researchers are interested in the relationship between pesticide exposures before and during pregnancy vis-à-vis HPE outcomes; no human studies to date had examined this relationship. The paper’s authors write, “Given the neurotoxic nature of many pesticides, increased susceptibility of the developing brain to toxic agents, associations of pesticides with brain malformations, and experimental evidence linking ingredients in pesticides with inhibition of the most important pathway in holoprosencephaly, investigation of pesticide exposure in HPE etiology is warranted.” [For science types: HPE brain and facial malformations “result from acute inhibition of the Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) pathway at a critical period of sensitivity during early embryogenesis.”]

Using a detailed questionnaire to estimate household, occupational, and environmental exposures to pesticide products (and other factors), the researchers examine maternal exposure to a number of pesticide compounds during four identified stages of pregnancy: preconception, early, mid, and late pregnancy. Among the pesticide categories surveyed are: personal insect repellents; lice or scabies medication; pet pest control products; insecticides for home or yard/garden use; and weed killers. The survey also asked about occupational exposures, and residential proximity to agricultural fields. Last, it sought information about some demographic characteristics, and about other factors that might either be protective or associated with HPE risk, such as maternal intake of folic acid before and during pregnancy, and substance use, including alcohol and nicotine, respectively.

Some highlights of the research findings include:

• maternal use of folic acid supplements prior to conception and/or during the first month of pregnancy are associated with reduced odds of HPE
• self-reports of pesticide use for some common pesticides, including those containing N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) are rare, but exposure to DEET-containing repellents during the preconception period are associated with increased risk for HPE; read about Beyond Pesticides DEET-related recommendations here
• self-report of maternal exposure to any personal insect repellents in the preconception period are associated with increased odds for HPE
• exposure rates for lice and scabies treatments are similarly low, and not associated with HPE risk
• exposures to weed killers during preconception are not associated with HPE except where the exposures occur inside the home, in which case a trend toward association with HPE are found (researchers note that “residential pesticide use has been shown to contribute to the persistence of higher than recommended quantities of pesticide residues in the indoor air and [on] surfaces for as long as two weeks after a single application”)
• residential proximity to an agricultural field (within 100 meters) during the preconception period or early pregnancy (i.e., the first trimester) are positively associated with HPE risk

Pesticide products used for pets or in the home show the strongest association with increased odds of HPE (compared to controls). Notably, exposures during pregnancy to insecticides and acaricides (compounds poisonous to ticks, fleas, and mites) used on pets, either via maternal use or use by another household member, are positively associated with risk for HPE. In addition, maternal exposure to personal insect repellents during preconception and/or during early pregnancy are positively associated with HPE — indeed, there is an observed twofold increase in risk.

The study authors assert that pesticides’ neurotoxicity is a likely actor in the compounds’ potential role as HPE teratogens. The study does not drill down to identify the specific active ingredients in the pesticides to which subjects reported exposure, nor does it examine dietary pesticide exposures. The authors note: “Future epidemiologic and experimental work should investigate associations between specific pesticide products and chemicals because nontargeted analyses grouping different pesticides including innocuous chemicals could mask the role of those chemicals contributing to HPE.”

The researchers identify five major pesticide classes — pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, carbamates, organochlorines, and organophosphates — and acknowledge a variety of modes of action across them re: developmental neurotoxicity. Given the recent relative increase of pyrethroid compound use in homes, and the strong associations between in-home pesticide and acaricide use, they say, “It would be especially imperative to examine possible associations between exposures to components of pyrethroid insecticide formulations and the risk for HPE.” They also assert that further investigations of genetic-plus-environmental interactions, as well as of biomarkers, are warranted.

The research does not establish causation, but rather, degrees of association between various kinds of pesticide exposure and subsequent incidence of HPE. The paper says, “Given the small sample size it is difficult to conclude causal associations, however, results of this analysis combined with emerging experimental data, increase potential weight of evidence that pesticide use and both active and inactive ingredients should be considered potential risk factors for HPE.” They also note that there is in vitro evidence that a co-ingredient in more than 1,000 pyrethroid insecticide products, piperonyl butoxide, inhibits the HPE-associated Shh pathway mentioned above.

Beyond Pesticides has written about the issue of pesticide exposure during critical developmental windows — which include the period prior to pregnancy and the first few weeks of the first trimester, especially. Those early weeks of pregnancy are when basic structures and systems such as the central nervous system (which includes the brain) develop rapidly. During these vulnerable developmental windows, neurodevelopmental toxins, such as those found in many active ingredients of pesticides, are particularly dangerous. Apart from development of HPE, some of the impacts and increased vulnerability that fetuses, babies, and children may endure may continue throughout childhood, putting kids at increased risk of cancer, developmental delays, and learning disabilities. Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, of Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, has said, “Unfortunately, current testing paradigms do not properly assess the impact of risk factors during vulnerable exposure windows. Without new policies and guidelines, we cannot have a universal healthy start for children.”

In 2019, Dean Baker, MD, MPH — professor emeritus of medicine, epidemiology and public health in the School of Medicine, and former director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of California Irvine, California — wrote for Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You: “There are millions of chemicals registered in the chemical registry of the American Chemical Society, or the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) Registry. There are over 80,000 chemicals that are produced and used in the United States, most of them having been synthesized in the past 50 years. There are 2,000 new chemicals introduced into commerce every year. The majority have not been tested for other than acute toxicity. Over 95% have not been tested for their effects to children.”

The pregnancy-related risks of HPE due to pesticide exposures to which this study points serve to illuminate the folly of the federal regulatory system’s attempts to “mitigate” risks of pesticide exposure through small and piecemeal rules. Given the many thousands of chemical pesticides on the market, the complexity of trying to ensure “relative” safety from them (especially considering potential synergistic interactions, as well as interactions with genetic and “lifestyle” factors), and the heaps of cash that fund corporate interests (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.

Many scientists have argued that approaches to the challenges posed by pests, weeds, fungal infections, disease-carrying insects, and other problems ought to be guided by the Precautionary Principle. Developed at a 1998 conference, the scientists that convened for it declared, in their Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”

In application, this means that governmental regulation of any substance or activity proposed by an entity (usually a corporation) must require that proponents of the activity or substance, rather than the public, bear the burden of proof of safety. But more than 20 years hence, despite research results that support the eminent sense of this precautionary approach, and the advocacy of nongovernmental organizations and members of the public, the Precautionary Principle is still not the foundation of the U.S. approach to pesticides. Given the grossly inadequate nature of pesticide regulation in the U.S., the public cannot currently rely on governmental regulation, but must use local and personal actions to take precaution, as well as continue to advocate for federal, state, and locality precautionary paradigms.

For information on such personal precautions and protections, see these Beyond Pesticides’ website pages: Safer Choice: How to Avoid Hazardous Home, Garden, Community, and Food Use Pesticides; Center for Community Pesticide and Alternatives Information; Organic Agriculture, Eating with a Conscience, and Buying Organic Products; Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases; and Lawns and Landscapes, among others.

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

Source: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-020-00611-z

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2020) Conventional U.S. milk contains growth hormones, antibiotics, and low to elevated levels of pesticides not found in organic milk, according to a study published in the journal of Public Health Nutrition by Emory University researchers. Milk can bioaccumulate certain organic pollutants, making it a valuable medium to assess what chemical we might be ingesting daily. With milk being one of the most consumed beverages in the U.S., in addition to its use in other popular drinks (i.e., coffee and tea), this study discloses widespread contamination and highlights the need for improved regulation. Researchers in the study note, “To our knowledge, the present study is the first study to compare levels of pesticide in the U.S. milk supply by production method (conventional vs. organic). It is also the first in a decade to measure antibiotic and hormone levels and compare them by milk production type.” 

The market for conventional milk, produced in chemical-intensive agriculture, is declining, but the demand for organic milk is increasing due to concerns over chemical contamination in consumer products from pesticides and other toxic chemicals. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets limits for pesticide residues in food products, the agency fails to assess aggregate pesticide exposure and the accompanying risks. Milk is a staple in many Americans’ diets, especially children and developing youth who continue to consume it into adulthood. In addition to being the first to assess the degree to which toxic chemicals like pesticides, antibiotics, and growth hormones (synthetic) exist in commercial milk, this research demonstrates how chemical concentration levels in milk vary among organic and conventional, non-organic milk production. Researchers at Emory University state, “Little is known about the real-life, often prolonged exposure to combinations of pesticides that may compound any effect.”

The researchers investigated the difference between residues in conventional and organic milk by examining milk samples for current-use pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones (i.e., bovine growth hormone [bGH] and insulin-like growth factor 1 [IGF-1]). Scientists obtained milk samples from four half-gallon U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) labeled organic and four half-gallon non-organic milk cartons, from nine U.S. regions. The regions include California, Great Lakes, Midwest, New England, New York, Northwest, Rocky Mountain Southeast, and Southwest. Six of the eight half-gallon cartons are 2% milk, a majority of what most American children drink, and the remaining two are whole milk. Researchers determined residue levels in milk samples using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Lastly, researchers compared the results of the study to that of chemical residue levels established by federal tolerances.

All conventional, non-organic milk samples have residues of current-use pesticides, antibiotics, and growth hormones, not present in organic samples, according to the study. Researchers detect low to elevated levels of current-use pesticide residues in conventional milk samples. The pesticides include atrazine (26%), permethrin (46%), cypermethrin (49%), chlorpyrifos (59%), and diazinon (60%). Additionally, the study finds that antibiotic residue levels in conventional milk samples surpass federal limits for amoxicillin (3%), and illegal sulfamethazine (37%) and sulfathiazole (26%). Concentration levels of growth hormones bGH and IGF-1 are 20 and three times greater in conventional milk samples than organic samples, respectively. The research did detect the presence of legacy pesticides—pesticides banned for use but remain environmentally persistent—in both non-organic and organic samples, hexachlorobenzene, ppDDT, and ppDDE (a DDT metabolite). However, legacy pesticide residue levels remain higher in conventional milk samples than organic.  

This research indicates a lack of information surrounding the chemicals that contaminate commercial consumer goods like milk. The Organic Center’s director of science programs, Jessica Shade, PhD, mentions, “This study finds that the presence of antibiotics and pesticides in conventional milk is much more prevalent and pervasive than previously thought.”

Many studies document occupational and residential pesticide exposure from point source pesticide applications. Sprays, granular baits, and other pesticide application methods directly expose pesticide applicators and adjacent communities to the harmful effects of these toxic chemicals, even at low levels. However, pesticides can move from non-point applications and contaminate commercial products that are ingested (i.e., drinking water, food), inhaled (i.e., cigarettes, nano-silver laced masks) or absorbed (i.e., pet products, soaps, and other antimicrobials). A 2015 study reveals heptachlor contaminated milk in Hawaii increased the risk of developing the degenerative disorder Parkinson’s disease.

International retail milk also faces similar pesticide contamination issues as a 2020 study finds eight different types of insecticides and fungicides, in addition to other chemicals, present in Israeli milk samples. Although EPA and FDA set legal limits on chemical residues in consumer products, the agencies often fail to enforce the law.

The USDA oversees the organic certification process and ensures organic farms comply with organic regulations. However, the organic industry has a problem when it comes to the issue of milk production and factory farms. Several exposés uncover how USDA fails to enforce National Organic Program regulations on larger dairy farms. In 2017, the Washington Post investigated the Aurora Organic Dairy farm in Colorado and found, “Signs of grazing were sparse.[…] The number of cows seen on pasture numbered only in the hundreds.[…] At no point was any more than 10 percent of the herd out.” The Post sent milk samples from the farm to Virginia Tech for analysis, confirming these cows produce conventional (non-organic) milk. Previously, the organic agriculture watchdog group Cornucopia Institute filed a complaint with USDA against the same dairy farm for violating the organic grazing rules. Grazing is vital in organic milk production. Consumers expect that the organic milk they drink comes from cows that are pastured because it is better for the cows and for the people who drink their milk. Despite the discrete issues within the organic industry, organic milk remains a healthier option in comparison to conventional, non-organic.  

Past studies find organic milk and grass-fed milk—with similar practices—to be healthier. Specifically, organic milk contains 62% more omega-3 fatty acids and 25% fewer omega-6s. An unbalanced ratio of more omega-6 to omega-3s can cause severe health problems, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other illnesses. Nevertheless, higher consumption of omega-3s reduces the risk of diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cancer, and many other chronic disorders. Organic foods can mitigate exposure to pesticides due to the method in which farmers grow and prepare food. The American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) recognizes that organic food is lower pesticide residues, making it significantly better for child consumption. Children are especially sensitive to pesticide exposure as their bodies are still developing. Additionally, pesticide exposure early on in life heightens the risks of developing chronic diseases, like diabetes, various cancers, neurological disorders, and more.

This research provides evidence that levels of chemical contaminant residues in conventional, non-organic milk greatly surpass that of organic. While organic contains no detectable levels of current-use pesticides, all non-organic samples do. Four milk samples exceed the federal limits for the pesticide residue, with 59% of sampling containing the highly neurotoxic, insecticide chlorpyrifos residue. Chlorpyrifos is of special concern, as states including Hawaii, California, New York, and Maryland, are phasing out most of its agricultural uses, after EPA negotiated chlorpyrifos’s withdrawal from most of the residential market because of neurotoxic effects to children in 2000. Current chlorpyrifos use is on golf courses and row crops like corn, soybeans, fruit/nut trees, brussels sprouts, cranberries, broccoli, and cauliflower. Human exposure to chlorpyrifos can induce endocrine disruption, reproductive dysfunction, fetal defects, neurotoxic damage, and kidney/liver damage. Chlorpyrifos is highly toxic to bees, birds, and aquatic organisms.

Studies like this one demonstrate the need for improved monitoring of consumer products to ensure product safety. Although skeptics question the use of liquid chromatography to accurately detect levels of chemical residues, instead of the FDA approved inhibition method, detection alone is enough of a concern. Jean Welsh, PhD, a preeminent author of the Emory University study and a nutritional epidemiologist, states that not enough is known about the impact of these chemicals. Additionally, Drs. Shade and Welsh react to the study results, implying “[a] need [for] further research to see how chronic, low levels of antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones impact health in the long term.”

Beyond Pesticides believes that we must eliminate pesticide use that contaminates consumer products by converting to organic practices to eliminate the hazards associated with pesticide exposure. 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 higher return than chemical-intensive agriculture. It is vital to continue to support organic food production and maintain the integrity of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic label. For more information about organic food production, visit Beyond Pesticides Keep Organic Strong webpage. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure. Additionally, learn more about the implications of pesticides on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. 

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

Sources: Public Health Nutrition, USA Today

(Beyond Pesticides, July 8, 2020) Efforts to control the transmission of malaria are encountering a big, though predictable, problem: the mosquitoes that transmit malaria are developing resistance to at least five of the insecticides that have been central to limiting transmission of the disease. A study released in late June reveals a dramatic increase in resistance to pyrethroid insecticides and DDT across sub-Saharan Africa. This signals the failure of a mainstay chemical approach to the spread of malarial mosquitoes; this same problem — resistance — is happening with chemical management of agricultural pests and weeds, and with antibiotics to treat human bacterial infections. This study underscores a point Beyond Pesticides has made repeatedly: resistance to pesticides (whether insecticides, herbicides, biocides, fungicides, or medical antibiotics) is nearly inevitable. The solution to containing the spread of malaria lies not in the use of more and different chemicals, but in nontoxic approaches that respect nature and ecological balance.

Malaria is a sometimes deadly disease caused by female Anopheles mosquitoes infected with any of four varieties of the Plasmodium parasite. The disease kills roughly 400,000 people annually, with half that mortality in sub-Saharan Africa. The U.S. sees approximately 2,000 cases of malaria annually, primarily in people returning from countries in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa that deal with consistent malaria threats.

In such regions, primary control strategies for these mosquito vectors during the past couple of decades have been the insecticidal treatment of bed nets (known as ITNs), and indoor residual spraying (IRS) of insecticides on walls, floors, ceilings, and eaves prior to the intensive malaria transmission season. The development of mosquito resistance to these insecticides means that existing control programs, which promote ITNs and/or IRS, are becoming far less effective. Over the course of the last two decades, deltamethrin and λ-cyhalothrin (synthetic pyrethroids), and DDT have been used for IRS, but the authors note that other classes of insecticides, such as carbamates and organophosphates, are increasingly being used for IRS.

It is noteworthy that DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was used intensively as a malarial control (and for other purposes) from the 1940s through the 1960s. In the U.S., the compound was banned in 1972 because of its extreme persistence in and harm to the environment, and because it accumulates in fatty tissue in humans. Exposure to DDT and its breakdown products is linked with harms to the human reproductive, endocrine, and neurological systems, as well as to development of cancer, diabetes, and obesity. Although DDT is no longer manufactured or used in much of the world (China is currently the largest manufacturer), its use continues in 19 countries, and much of that is for mosquito control.

In 2018, Beyond Pesticides reported that “Rampant overuse [of DDT], both to control disease vectors and in agriculture, resulted in the development of significant resistance to the compound. Today, DDT resistance is widespread in Anopheles mosquitoes.” In 2017, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) noted, “Of the 73 countries that provided monitoring data to WHO [the United Nations World Health Organization] from 2010 onward, 60 countries reported insect resistance to at least one insecticide and 50 reported resistance to 2 or more insecticides. This highlights the problem of relying on insecticide-based strategies for vector control. . . . Ultimately, disease vectors and parasites develop resistance to the insecticide and it becomes almost ineffective in the long run.”

The subject study comes out of the University of Oxford, and was published by PLOS Biology. Researchers and co-authors Catherine Moyes, PhD and Penelope Hancock, PhD analyzed a database of information on mosquitoes across the sub-Saharan region of Africa, mapping dates and locations of the rise of insecticide resistance in Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. They then created modeling to quantify temporal and spatial trends in eastern and western regions of the continent. During the period from 2005 to 2017, their modeling found, mosquito mortality after exposure to pesticides dropped from nearly 100% to under 30% in some regions, and the geographic spread of such resistance grew.

West Africa showed drastic increases in resistance to all synthetic pyrethroids. For example, in 2005, mean mortality to deltamethrin was below the WHO (World Health Organization) threshold for confirmed resistance across 15% of the region; by 2017, that figure rose to 98%. East Africa has seen a real, though somewhat less dramatic, increase in resistance to pyrethroids, with an analogous rise in spread during the same period from 9% to 45% of the region. DDT resistance was more widespread in 2005 than was resistance to pyrethroids, but it, too, showed progression. In the west in 2005, confirmed resistance (as defined by mortality below the WHO threshold) to DDT was found in 53% of the territory, and rose to a spread across 97% of the area by 2017.

The researchers assert that, although their modeling included more than 100 predictor variables that might influence selection for resistance, “it is unlikely that we have captured the full set of causal variables underlying selection. In particular, data on the quantities of insecticides used in agriculture, and where they were applied, were not available. Such information would better inform predictive relationships between resistance and agricultural insecticide use. We note that the relationships between insecticide resistance and the predictor variables represented in our models do not prove causality. Each variable interacts with other variables . . . and possibly with variables not included in our analysis.” This acknowledgment points to a potential role for agricultural use of pesticides in the resistance scenario for malarial mosquitoes.

The issue of resistance is growing in agriculture, in medicine, and in other sectors (such as mosquito control) in which humans hope to quell the advance of organisms that harm people and critical supports for human life, such as food and medical care. In all these areas, the “fixes” on which people have come to depend, whether antibiotics for bacterial infections, or pesticides to beat back weed and insect pests, or insecticides to try to prevent vector-borne diseases, are increasingly failing as organisms develop resistance to compounds that would thwart them. PANNA notes, “The World Health Organization underscored the problem in their 2012 guidance on policy making for Integrated Vector Management (IVM): ‘Resistance to insecticides is an increasing problem in vector control because of the reliance on chemical control and expanding operations . . . Furthermore, the chemical insecticides used can have adverse effects on health and the environment.’”

Development of resistance is an entirely normal, adaptive phenomenon: organisms evolve, “exploiting” beneficial genetic mutations that give them survival advantage. For nearly a century, human response to this has been primarily a chemical “chasing” of such evolutionary changes — developing a compound that kills the offending organism (whether pest or weed or bacterium or fungus) for a while. Organisms nearly inevitably change to become resistant to that particular chemical assault, whereupon people — the chemical industry, researchers, applicators, farmers, public health workers, clinicians, et al. — have typically moved on to the next chemical “solution.”

Beyond Pesticides has written extensively on the issue of resistance, particularly as it relates to the use of agricultural and other land-management pesticides, with the central message: resistance is a symptom of the ineffectiveness of chemical-intensive agriculture, and leads to increased use of more, and more-toxic, pesticides. In addition, resistance in one of the “sectors” mentioned above can “cross over” to become problematic in another. Agricultural and veterinary uses of antibiotics, for example, have contributed very significantly to the problem of resistance of certain bacteria or fungi to antibiotics that have historically knocked down such infections in humans. Examples include familiar drug names: penicillin, vancomycin, azithromycin, and fluconazole — all of which have become less and less effective as pathogens have developed resistance to them.

Transmission of malaria is a problem that needs solutions far less reliant on intensive chemical treatments, especially noxious DDT. PANNA has endorsed the WHO concept of Integrated Vector Management (IVM), writing: “Vector control relying on a community-based, least-toxic version of Integrated Vector Management (IVM) has proved to be much more effective in the long run in controlling mosquito populations and the diseases they transmit. . . . When communities are at the forefront of active mosquito control and malaria management efforts — using the least toxic, yet very effective IVM methods — significant reductions in malaria incidences can be observed. . . . Given the effective alternatives to using hazardous pesticides, it is essential that governments around the world focus on supporting IVM strategies that are least toxic and can be sustained over the long term through community leadership and participation.”

A decade ago, Pesticide Action Network Germany published on its website, “Control malaria without DDT! There are more options than currently used” — a call to using no- or low-risk approaches. Among the alternative strategies it identifies are:
• prevention measures that eliminate mosquito breeding sites (any standing water), such as leveling land to eliminate water-catching depressions, clearing vegetation, removing trash, and planting trees; use of ecosystem-compatible predators and nematodes; use of bacterial and/or botanical larvicides; improvements in home/building sanitation and structural integrity; personal protection, such as long-sleeved shirts, botanical repellants, and mosquito nets and screens
• pathogen control, including medicinal herbs, chemoprophylaxis, and vaccination when available
• vector controls, such as mosquito traps and targets; pyrethroids if necessary; and use of fungi

Research published in 2018 demonstrated yet another potential approach to controlling malaria transmission: exposing A. gambiae to specific antimalarial compounds via treated surfaces (such as bed nets). When the mosquitoes take up low concentrations of an antimalarial drug prior to or shortly after infection by the Plasmodium parasite, the drug causes “full parasite arrest in the midgut, and prevents transmission of infection,” the research found. Of course, antimalarial drugs are subject to the same resistance development as any other chemical approach.

Even if malaria is not a local concern, most people are concerned about the diseases mosquitoes can transmit, including West Nile virus, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, and Zika fever. Beyond Pesticides provides useful information on mosquito management and insect-borne diseases on a section of its website devoted to these issues.

Beyond Pesticides advocates alternatives to chemical approaches. The most successful malaria control programs combine a variety of strategies with community education, and require government commitment and political will. For example, Vietnam reduced malaria deaths by 97% and malaria cases by 59% when it switched in 1991 from trying to eradicate malaria using DDT to a DDT-free malaria control program involving distribution of drugs and mosquito nets, along with widespread health education organized with village leaders. A program in central Kenya focuses on reducing malaria by working with the rice-growing community to improve water management. The program also involves using livestock as bait, introducing biological controls, and distributing mosquito nets in affected areas.

Beyond Pesticides maintains that management strategies to combat insect-borne malaria cannot be successful if they are based on chemical-intensive strategies that ignore the underlying conditions that exacerbate the spread of the disease. Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, has noted, “We should be advocating for a just world where we no longer treat poverty and development with poisonous band-aids, but join together to address the root causes of insect-borne disease, because the chemical-dependent alternatives are ultimately deadly for everyone.” He also said, “We should focus on the deplorable living conditions, and inequitable distribution of wealth and resources worldwide that give rise to squalor, inhumane living conditions, and the poor state of development that, together, breed insect-borne diseases like malaria.”

Even if malaria is not a local concern, most people are concerned about the diseases mosquitoes can transmit, including West Nile virus, Eastern Equine Encephalitis, and Zika fever. Beyond Pesticides provides useful information on mosquito management and insect-borne diseases on a section of its website devoted to these issues.

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

Sources: https://www.courthousenews.com/scientists-track-pesticide-resistance-in-malaria-carrying-mosquitoes/amp/; https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000633#sec001

(Beyond Pesticides, July 7, 2020) One’s zip code plays an important role in the likelihood of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD), according to data published by Louisiana State University researchers in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. With genetics and exposure to agricultural pesticide use identified as the main factors affecting PD, proximity to certain cropland and its effluent had a major impact on disease risk. As with most environmentally related diseases, this study highlights the disproportionate risk and environmental racism low income, indigenous and people of color communities endure.

Researchers received access to over 23,000 PD diagnoses in Louisiana between 1999 and 2012, and mapped these data by zip code. Risk was determined calculating the number of diagnoses per 10,000 people in a given zip code, based on census data. To flesh out the role agriculture was playing in PD diagnoses, additional data derived from water quality samples taken by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, and the U.S. Geological Survey pesticide use estimates were compared against reported disease incidence.

Results show that certain zip codes faced significantly higher incidence of PD than others in the state. Further, “The PD high-risk areas match closely the arbor-pastoral areas of the state that are of deciduous and evergreen forests, forest not otherwise specified, and grass/pastures,” the study indicates. In Allen and Evangeline parishes, with heavy timber operations and abundant pasture land, researchers found upwards of 35 diagnoses per 10,000 residents. The average annual incidence of of the disease in the state was found to be 2.9 per 10,000 people. According to census data, nearly 30% of people in Evangeline parish live below the poverty line, and roughly 1 in 5 adults under the age of 65 have a disability.

Researchers note that areas with high aquifer recharge potential had higher rates of PD diagnoses. The Sabine River, and the contribution of Texas agriculture was specifically cited in the study. “One does not have to be living on a riverbank to be drinking its water,” the study reads. In particular, the authors indicate that a number of Native American communities live the Sabine River aquifer and are at elevated risk due to the potential for drinking water to be contaminated.

The study identifies pesticide use, specifically 2,4-D, paraquat, and chlorpyrifos, on pasture land, forestry, or woodland operations, as major risk factors for PD. Areas where these chemicals quickly seep into drinking water are at highest risk. The authors indicate that a transition to glyphosate-tolerant crops seemed to lessen the disease risk in certain agricultural areas. However, given glyphosate’s strong links to cancer, it is possible that risks shifted to different disease outcomes. Further, while glyphosate may have temporarily replaced the use of 2,4-D in many cropping systems, with glyphosate resistance on the rise, 2,4-D is making its way back into heavy use. In fact, the agricultural industry is now speeding towards multi-herbicide tolerant cropping systems, resulting in a much greater public health threat than any prior cropping system.

The study concludes with the following, “three aspects of Parkinson’s disease that need to be kept in mind: (1) It is, unfortunately, a disease that cannot be cured; it can only be prevented; (2) It is part of the agricultural ecology; (3) It is dynamic; its expression can change.” Beyond Pesticides rejects the concept that increased risk of a degenerative disease, that can only be prevented, must also be seen as an indelible part of agricultural ecology. Organic agriculture represents a safer, healthier approach to crop production that does not necessitate the use of highly toxic pesticides. See here for the whole picture on the benefits of organic production to our health.

Environmental racism must be tackled through programs that acknowledge the damage of past actions, and improve outcomes for disproportionately affected communities. Support organizations that are working to advance black food sovereignty, and farmworker rights.

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

Source: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2020) EPA’s proposed interim decision (PID) on the weed killer clopyralid is inadequate to protect human health, property, nontarget plants, and pollinators from damage. Clopyralid poses unreasonable adverse effects that cannot be remedied by EPA’s proposed fixes. It should be banned.

Sign the petition by noon Monday, July 6! Tell EPA to ban the persistent toxic herbicide clopyralid.

Clopyralid is a toxic persistent herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds on lawns and turf, range, pastures, right-of ways, and on several crops. Approximately 1.6 million pounds of clopyralid is used on 20 million acres per year in the U.S. on agricultural land, but it is also commonly used to kill dandelions, clover, and thistles. Lawn care operators applied over a million pounds of clopyralid in 2013.

Clopyralid is notorious for causing damage to nontarget plants. The registration was modified in 2002 to delete residential turf uses from the clopyralid product label. Additionally, under the amended label professional applicators are required to notify property managers not to compost clippings from treated grass. EPA proposes to expand the prohibition to include school turf, but clopyralid products will continue to be used on golf courses and certain other forms of nonresidential turf, as well as farm, ranch, and forestry uses.

Clopyralid causes environmental and property damage through drift, runoff, use of treated plant material (such as straw or grass clippings) for mulch or compost, contaminated irrigation water, and urine or manure from animals consuming treated vegetation. Clopyralid is “considered volatile,” according to EPA, meaning that it can evaporate from foliage and soil after application, move away from the application site, and “adversely affect nontarget broadleaf plants.” EPA calculated that volatilization of only one percent of applied clopyralid would be enough to damage nontarget plants.

Clopyralid can cause damage to sensitive plants at levels of 10 parts per billion. It is not broken down in composting facilities, and composters are very concerned about carry-over of clopyralid and other persistent herbicides, such as aminopyralid, aminocyclopyrachlor, and picloram into compostable materials. Clopyralid can enter the composting facility through lawn clippings, hay, straw, crop residues, and manure. Compost facilities now test for residues of persistent herbicides, but such tests are time-intensive and expensive.

In November 2002, the registration of clopyralid for use on residential lawns was voluntarily cancelled by the registrant, Dow AgroSciences. However, compost feedstocks are contaminated by other uses that are still allowed. Residues from any of these uses may find their way to composting facilities. Grass clippings, hay, and straw may also be used as mulch, allowing direct transfer of the herbicide to susceptible plants.

The contaminated mulch and compost may be used by homeowners, landscapers, or organic farmers. In the case of homeowners, it can mean the loss of expensive plantings. Landscapers may be liable for damages. In the case of organic farmers, it can mean the loss of a crop and possibly the loss of organic certification.

Clopyralid is not metabolized by animals but passes through in urine and feces. Thus, farmers and composters are advised to avoid manure from animals that may have eaten hay or feed that may be contaminated with it or other persistent herbicides. EPA proposes label amendments to mitigate these problems. If these label restrictions are followed, they may minimize the spread of clopyralid residues into sensitive areas. Doing so, however, reduces the availability of organic nutrients for crops and compost makers, thus burdening organic farmers and composters. This places undue burdens on those who do not benefit from the use of the herbicide and makes agriculture less sustainable. Instead, registrations of clopyralid and other persistent herbicides should be cancelled.

All herbicides, especially those targeting broadleaved plants, pose the risk of removing plants that provide food and habitat for pollinators. Some of those pollinators may be threatened or endangered species. As EPA admits, it has not evaluated risks to threatened and endangered species. Nor has it completed endocrine disruption evaluation. Since both of these are very sensitive consequences—that may result from much lower exposures than those evaluated thus far—reregistration must not proceed until those evaluations—including consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service—are complete. 

Although EPA downplays them, clopyralid does present human health risks. Clopyralid is classified by EPA in acute toxicity class III as slightly toxic. Laboratory studies have shown that clopyralid is a severe eye irritant and dermal irritation has also been noted, which can lead to skin sensitization for prolonged skin exposures. Some developmental and reproductive effects have been observed in laboratory animals. The livers and kidneys of rats as well as the livers of dogs were affected by changes in weight and decreased red blood cell counts. Another study found that weights of rabbit fetuses decreased at both low and high doses of clopyralid. Skeletal abnormalities were also observed in these fetuses at all doses. Clopyralid products also contain toxic contaminants and “inert” or “other” ingredients.

Resistance to herbicides is an expected consequence of their use, so any perceived benefit of using an herbicide must be discounted by its reduced lifespan as an effective weed control. There are currently 514 unique cases (combinations of species and sites of action) of herbicide resistant weeds globally, with 262 species (152 dicots and 110 monocots). Weeds have evolved resistance to 23 of the 26 known herbicide sites of action and to 167 different herbicides. Herbicide resistant weeds have been reported in 93 crops in 70 countries. Resistance to clopyralid is known in four species, and resistance to other synthetic auxins has been documented in other species. 

The growth of organic agriculture demonstrates the viability of nontoxic alternatives in agriculture. Nonorganic producers are looking to organic practices for help in dealing with the problem of herbicide resistance. In turf systems, managers are increasingly successful using organic systems, often mandated by local ordinances.

The use of clopyralid poses risks to human health, property, and the environment that are borne mostly by those who do not receive any benefit from the use of the herbicide. The risks are not outweighed by benefits, so the registration of clopyralid should be cancelled.

See Beyond Pesticides comments for more details and references.

Sign the petition by noon Monday, July 6! Tell EPA to ban the persistent toxic herbicide clopyralid.

Thank you!
The Beyond Pesticides Team

PETITION TO EPA
Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0167

The undersigned oppose the continued registration of clopyralid.

EPA’s proposed interim decision (PID) on clopyralid is inadequate to protect human health, property, nontarget plants, and pollinators from damage. Clopyralid poses unreasonable adverse effects that cannot be remedied by EPA’s proposed fixes. It should be banned.

Clopyralid is toxic persistent herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds on lawns and turf, range, pastures, right-of ways and on several crops. Approximately 1.6 million pounds of clopyralid is used on 20 million acres per year in the U.S. on agricultural land, but it is also commonly used to kill dandelions, clover, and thistles. Lawn care operators applied over a million pounds of clopyralid in 2013.

Clopyralid is notorious for causing damage to nontarget plants. The registration was modified in 2002 to delete residential turf uses from the clopyralid product label. Additionally, under the amended label professional applicators are required to notify property managers not to compost clippings from treated grass. EPA proposes to expand the prohibition to include school turf, but clopyralid products will continue to be used on golf courses and certain other forms of nonresidential turf, as well as farm, ranch, and forestry uses.

Clopyralid causes environmental and property damage through drift, runoff, use of treated plant material (such as straw or grass clippings) for mulch or compost, contaminated irrigation water, and urine or manure from animals consuming treated vegetation. Clopyralid is “considered volatile,” according to EPA, meaning that it can evaporate from foliage and soil after application, move away from the application site, and “adversely affect nontarget broadleaf plants.” EPA calculated that volatilization of only one percent of applied clopyralid would be enough to damage nontarget plants.

Clopyralid can cause damage to sensitive plants at levels of 10 parts per billion. It is not broken down in composting facilities, and composters are very concerned about carry-over of clopyralid and other persistent herbicides, such as aminopyralid, aminocyclopyrachlor, and picloram into compostable materials. Clopyralid can enter the composting facility through lawn clippings, hay, straw, crop residues, and manure. Compost facilities now test for residues of persistent herbicides, but such tests are time-intensive and expensive.

In November 2002, the registration of clopyralid for use on residential lawns was voluntarily cancelled by the registrant, Dow AgroSciences. However, compost feedstocks are contaminated by other uses that are still allowed. Residues from any of these uses may find their way to composting facilities. Grass clippings, hay, and straw may also be used as mulch, allowing direct transfer of the herbicide to susceptible plants.

The contaminated mulch and compost may be used by homeowners, landscapers, or organic farmers. In the case of homeowners, it can mean the loss of expensive plantings. Landscapers may be liable for damages. In the case of organic farmers, it can mean the loss of a crop and possibly the loss of organic certification.

Clopyralid is not metabolized by animals, but passes through in urine and feces. Thus, farmers and composters are advised to avoid manure from animals that may have eaten hay or feed that may be contaminated with it or other persistent herbicides. EPA proposes label amendments to mitigate these problems. If these label restrictions are followed, they may minimize the spread of clopyralid residues into sensitive areas. Doing so, however, reduces the availability of organic nutrients for crops and compost makers, thus burdening organic farmers and composters. This places undue burdens on those who do not benefit from the use of the herbicide and makes agriculture less sustainable. Instead, registrations of clopyralid and other persistent herbicides should be cancelled.

All herbicides, especially those targeting broadleaved plants, pose the risk of removing plants that provide food and habitat for pollinators. Some of those pollinators may be threatened or endangered species. As EPA admits, it has not evaluated risks to threatened and endangered species. Nor has it completed endocrine disruption evaluation. Since both of these are very sensitive consequences—that may result from much lower exposures than those evaluated thus far—reregistration must not proceed until those evaluations—including consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service—are complete. 

Although EPA downplays them, clopyralid does present human health risks. Clopyralid is classified by EPA in acute toxicity class III as slightly toxic. Laboratory studies have shown that clopyralid is a severe eye irritant and dermal irritation has also been noted which can lead to skin sensitization for prolonged skin exposures. Some developmental and reproductive effects have been observed in laboratory animals. The livers and kidneys of rats as well as the livers of dogs were affected by changes in weight and decreased red blood cell counts. Another study found that weights of rabbit fetuses decreased at both low and high doses of clopyralid. Skeletal abnormalities were also observed in these fetuses at all doses. Clopyralid products also contain toxic contaminants and “inert” or “other” ingredients.

Resistance to herbicides is an expected consequence of their use, so any perceived benefit of using an herbicide must be discounted by its reduced lifespan as an effective weed control. There are currently 514 unique cases (combinations of species and sites of action) of herbicide resistant weeds globally, with 262 species (152 dicots and 110 monocots). Weeds have evolved resistance to 23 of the 26 known herbicide sites of action and to 167 different herbicides. Herbicide resistant weeds have been reported in 93 crops in 70 countries. Resistance to clopyralid is known in four species, and resistance to other synthetic auxins has been documented in other species. 

The growth of organic agriculture demonstrates the viability of nontoxic alternatives in agriculture. Nonorganic producers are looking to organic practices for help in dealing with the problem of herbicide resistance. In turf systems, managers are increasingly successful using organic systems, often mandated by local ordinances.

The use of clopyralid poses risks to human health, property, and the environment that are borne mostly by those who do not receive any benefit from the use of the herbicide. The risks are not outweighed by benefits, so the registration of clopyralid should be cancelled.

Please see Beyond Pesticides comments for more details and citations.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.                                                                                            

Image by Rickard Zerpe, Hardyhead Silverside (Atherinomorus lacunosus) (Photo: Hardyhead Silverside…/cc/flickr)

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2020) Exposure to low levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals commonly in waterways, including pesticides, can impact future generations of major commercial fish, despite no direct exposure to the chemicals, according to research published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science by Oregon State University (OSU) researchers. Many studies assess the acute or chronic health implications associated with endocrine disruptors on a single generation but lack information on multi-generational impacts that can provide vital information on the fundamental survivability or fitness of many species. This study highlights the significance of understanding the implications of endocrine disruptors, even at low levels of exposure, as parental exposure can have adverse epigenetic consequences for future generations. Kaley Major, a Ph.D. fellow at Oregon State University (OSU) and lead research author, explains, “What t[his] gets at is something your grandparents may have come into contact within their environment can still be affecting the overall structure of your DNA in your life today.”

Endocrine disruptors are xenobiotics (i.e., chemical substances like toxic pesticides foreign to an organism or ecosystem). Past research shows exposures to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can adversely impact human, animal—and thus environmental—health, by altering the natural hormones in the body responsible for conventional fertile, physical, and mental development. However, this study looks at the implications of low levels of endocrine disruptors in a multi-generational platform, showing an epigenetic relationship between pesticide exposure and disease. Susanne Brander, Ph D., professor and aquatic toxicologist at OSU’s Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, notes the importance of understanding the consequence of exposure to endocrine disruptors on a day-to-day basis, “It’s really important to understand how animals can deal with stress in the environment, particularly when we are introducing new stressors on a daily basis.”

Researchers examine the multi- and trans-generational impacts on early life exposure to endocrine disruptors and their alteration of the genome in inland silversides (Menidia beryllina) fish, a staple bird prey and commercially valuable fish. The chemicals under investigation are emerging endocrine disruptors of concern: the pyrethroid insecticide bifenthrin; the synthetic progestin levonorgestrel; commonly detected synthetic estrogen (ethinylestradiol); and a synthetic androgen (trenbolone). Scientists added the analogous of a few drops of each endocrine disruptor in an Olympic-size swimming pool with silversides to mimic low-level exposure in the natural environment. Previous research demonstrates endocrine disruptors’ impact on DNA methylation (i.e., the process of adding a methyl group to a DNA molecule). Therefore, researchers tracked methylation for changes in gene expression and organism development using bisulfite sequencing, over 21 months in three generations.

 All three generations of fish demonstrate multi- and trans-generational inheritance of altered DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic dysfunction in comparison to the control group. Researchers observe an enrichment in biological processes and pathways involving carcinogenesis or cancer formation in fish. Additional analysis shows methylation differs in prospective endocrine responsive genes upon exposure to each endocrine-disrupting chemical, within each generation.

Inheritance of genetic dysfunction relating to hereditary influence on gene expression is a familiar phenomenon. Various studies note that adverse genomic alterations can phase down to future generations. However, the inheritance of epigenetic dysfunction relating to non-genetic influence (i.e., exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals like pesticides) on gene expression poses just as much of a risk to future generations. As far back as 15 years ago, a Washington State University study linked pesticide exposure to multi-generational impacts on male fertility in rodents. More recently, a plethora of research links pesticide exposure to endocrine disruption with transgenerational effects. According to multiple studies, exposure to the weed killer glyphosate (patented as an antibiotic) changes the bacterial composition of the gut microbiome in cattle, rodents, and honey bees. Researchers also found that glyphosate exposure has adverse multi-generational effects, causing negligible observable impacts on pregnant rodents, but severe effects on the two subsequent generations, including reproductive (prostate and ovarian) and kidney diseases, obesity, and birth anomalies. The emerging pesticide of concern, bifenthrin, disrupts normal reproductive function in rodents, causing alterations to the gene expression for hormone synthesis. New findings suggest exposure to the pesticide atrazine causes multi-generation resistance to the chemical in wasps by altering gut bacteria composition. Even banned pesticides like DDT still impact current and future generations, as DDT (and subsequent metabolites) can cause multi-generational cancer, multi-generational obesity, and generational reproductive abnormalities via endocrine disruption. Moreover, chemical byproducts made during the pesticide manufacturing process, such as dioxin, have multi-generational consequences on reproductive health.

This research finds clear evidence of epigenetic alteration to silverside fish offspring’s genome from limited exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The consistent patterns of methylation across the three generations show a relationship between methylation and epigenetic dysfunction. Scientists in the study believe that the observable, generational methylation patterns affect gene expression associated with distorted sex ratios, a reduction in hatching, and developmental defects in silversides. Implications for future research include a better understanding of what methylation markers mean and how these markers determine the effect of pollutants on the evolution or fitness of inland silversides. Dr. Susanne Brander states, “Our research helps show what animals do to respond to these changes and how quickly they can respond to them. That’s going to help us understand our impact on the environment in the long run.”

It is imperative to comprehend the impacts endocrine-disrupting chemicals have on aquatic organisms, like silverside fish, to help researchers understand the implications associated with exposure. However, environmental pollution from endocrine disruptors like pesticides is specifically concerning as the Trump administration is dismantling many environmental regulations, undermining scientific data, and upholding agrochemical company interests above ordinances. The administration reduced environmental safeguards in federal water by permitting offshore aquaculture. The administration already fails to accurately monitor water sources as exposure atrazine from waterways is higher in the Midwest during spring. Despite this, the administration has waived the requirement of the multinational chemical company Syngenta-ChemChina to continue monitoring Midwest waterways for the presence of the weed killer atrazine, through 2020. The input of glyphosate into the water ecosystem leads to a loss in ecosystem biodiversity and productivity. Furthermore, Chicago-based black women who consumed more glasses of tap water per day had residues of the DDT metabolite (DDE’) in their system. With this evidence, it is apparent that the federal government should implement strong safeguards that avoid harmful impacts of pesticide exposure on the current and future generations of humans and animals.

Beyond Pesticides believes that we must mitigate the multi-generational impacts pesticides pose on human and animal health. Adopting regenerative-organic practices and using least-toxic pest control can reduce harmful exposure to pesticides. Public policy should advocate for formidable safeguards on the agrochemical industry that ensure the terrestrial and aquatic environment are safe from chemical hazards. In doing so, we can shift away from unnecessary reliance on pesticides. For more on how to make that reality possible, check out our Tools for Change page and keep well-informed with our Action of the Week—tell Congress to save our oceans. Learn more about multi-generation impacts of pesticides on our health via Beyond Pesticide’s journal Pesticides and You. Additionally, learn more about the effects of pesticides on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. 

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

Sources: Frontiers in Marine Science, Oregon State University

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2020) As the U.S. is subject to searing criticism for inadequately regulated hazardous pesticides domestically, administration officials are standing in the way as other countries’ work toward modest reforms. According to a report published in Reuters, the U.S. is standing alongside the corrupt Bolsonaro administration in Brazil to oppose Thailand’s efforts to protect its citizens from highly toxic pesticides used in food production. Both countries launched separate complaints to the World Trade Organization after Thailand announced it would ban imports of the brain-damaging insecticide chlorpyrifos and weedkiller paraquat, which has been strongly linked to Parkinson’s disease.

On June 1, Thailand added paraquat and chlorpyrifos to its list of most hazardous substances. This listing initiated a follow-on regulation that banned the import of these substances on food, set to take effect in mid-July.

Thailand has been feeling the brunt of U.S. diplomatic pressure since it first proposed restrictions on toxic chemicals late last year. By December, the U.S. was able to get Bangkok to remove glyphosate from its proposal, and delay the listing of paraquat and chlorpyrifos until June. But as the current situation shows, the U.S. had no plans to stop pressuring the Bangkok government after its delay.

Thailand’s law would institute a zero-tolerance policy for any food imports that contain chlorpyrifos or paraquat. According to Reuters, Thailand is the world’s eighth and fourth largest importer of U.S. and Brazilian soybeans, both valuing over $500 million, and is a major importer of U.S. wheat. While Thailand’s agriculture minister has remained steadfast, explaining that there is a need to protect human health at all costs, Brazil and the U.S. argue that the country’s approach “disregards risk analyses in the setting of regulatory measures.” The measure also faces opposition from agrichemical companies based in Thailand.

It is clear that the current administrations in the U.S. and Brazil are more than willing to do the bidding of the agrichemical industry. Prior to President Trump’s election, the U.S was on course to ban chlorpyrifos due to the dangers it posed to children’s health and the developing brain. But shortly before a court-ordered deadline, then-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt had a private meeting with with Dow Chemical’s CEO, and reversed course on a ban. Even as Corteva (formerly called Dow Chemical) announced it would stop producing chlorpyrifos, EPA has continued to defend the insecticide at home and abroad.

EPA also continues to carry the agrichemical industry’s water in the case of paraquat. As part of a required review of the weedkiller’s registration, it recently downplayed a link between paraquat and Parkinson’s so strong that Samuel M. Goldman, MD, an epidemiologist in the San Francisco Veterans Affairs health system, told the New York Times, “The data is overwhelming. I’m not a farmer, I don’t need to kill weeds, but I have to believe there are less dangerous options out there.”

In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro opened the floodgates to increase toxic pesticide use in the country. By mid-summer 2019, the Ministry of Agriculture had approved the use of over 260 new hazardous pesticides. Recent reports show that the government is providing billions of dollars of tax subsidies to the multinational agrichemical industry.

As Beyond Pesticides wrote in its 2015 comments to EPA on chlorpyrifos, “Low-income African-American and Latino families, including farmworker families, continue to suffer the most, and this disproportionate impact creates an environmental justice issue that the agency must not continue to ignore.” Yet, not only has the current administration ignored this issue, it has perpetuated and exacerbated it by delaying protections for farmworker families and defending antiquated and highly hazardous pesticides.

Using U.S. diplomatic clout to do the bidding of the pesticide industry, and bully smaller countries wishing to rightfully protect their most vulnerable residents into compliance with our toxic status quo is a horrendous abuse of power. Lend your voice to stop this sort of decision-making within this administration. Join in support of actions this week and beyond to protect low-income and people of color communities, and tell EPA its past time the agency do its job to protect health and the environment.  

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, June 30, 2020) A review of scientific literature on the toxic effect of environmental contaminants—including pesticides—published in the journal Toxicological Science, “The Impact of Environmental Chemicals on the Gut Microbiome,” associates these chemicals to changes in the gut microbiome and other adverse health implications. The review, by researchers at the University of Illinois, looks at how environmental contaminants adversely effects and reinforce chemical disruption of the gut microbiome. It highlights the importance of evaluating how environmental contaminants, like pesticides, impact body regulation by gut microbiota. The study has significant implications for considerations that should be, but are not currently, a part of pesticide review and registration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Gut microbiota plays a crucial role in lifelong digestion, immune, and central nervous system regulation, as wells as other bodily functions. Through the gut biome, pesticide exposure can enhance or exacerbate, the adverse effects of additional environmental toxicants on the body. Since the gut microbiome shapes metabolism, it can mediate some toxic effects of environmental chemicals. However, with prolonged exposure to various environmental contaminants, critical chemical-induced changes may occur in the gut microbes, influencing adverse health outcomes. Karen Chiu, Ph.D., a graduate research fellow at the University of Illinois, states, “All of these data together suggest that exposure to many of these environmental chemicals, during various stages of life, can alter the gut microbiome in ways that influence health.” 

Over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts, including pesticides, bisphenols, phthalates, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and heavy metals, are all chemicals commonly present in human blood and urine samples. These toxicants can alter hormone metabolism, which adversely affects health outcomes. Adverse health effects of environmental contaminants include reproductive and developmental defects, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, obesity, thyroid disorders, and improper immune operation. Although studies show how chemical exposures affect human health, more research is now questioning how these chemicals influence gut microbiota.

The review details manufacturing compounds in customer goods, like bisphenols (BPA) in plastic packaging, and phthalates in anything from vinyl flooring to plastics packaging. Additionally, the paper examines the science behind the exposure to POPs like pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), perfluorochemicals (PFCs) in non-stick cookware, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (flame retardants), and dioxins (byproducts of pesticide manufacturing and burning organic material like fossil fuels). Various research in the review looks at the impacts of these chemicals in rodents (e.g., rats, mice), aquatic organisms (e.g., fish, amphibians), birds (e.g., chickens), larger mammals (e.g., dogs, cows, human adults, and infants), insects (e.g., honey bees), and other organisms.

A plethora of studies finds detectable levels of bisphenols in the urine of over 90% of all U.S. adults, in addition to an increase in Methanobrevibacter gut bacteria only in males. Human studies find that newborn exposure to high levels of phthalates alters the gut microbiome and immune response to vaccinations. Additionally, phthalate exposure during puberty compromises the microbial formation of the vital regulatory metabolite, butyrate, in mice. Recent studies find that exposure to persistent organic pollutants, like PCBs, shift microbes in the gut, thus increasing gut porousness, inflammation in the intestines, and cognitive dysfunction. Furthermore, another study links PFCs (a POP) exposure to a genetic shift in the gut microbiome and weakened lipid metabolism in female fish and offspring. There is extensive research surrounding gut dysbiosis associated with exposure to heavy metals like mercury, cadmium, lead, and arsenic in aquatic organisms, rodents, birds, and larger mammals. Dioxins also increase the formation of antibiotic resistant genes and disrupt gut microbiome, as well as lipid and glucose metabolism. According to multiple studies, exposure to the weed killer glyphosate (which is patented as an antibiotic) changes the bacterial composition of the gut microbiome in cattle, rodents, and honey bees. Chlorpyrifos pesticides alter gut microbe populations in developing and adult male rodents and fish. New findings suggest exposure to the pesticide atrazine, diazinon, glyphosate-based herbicides, and trichlorfon cause sex-specific shifts in gut microbiota, as well.

Dr. Chui concludes, “The pathologies associated with altered microbiomes after exposure to environmental chemicals include immune dysfunction, altered carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, and neurological and behavioral impairments. We are also seeing that these effects highly depend on an individual’s sex and age.”

Similar to gut microbes, soil microbiotas are essential for the normal functionality of the soil ecosystem. Toxic chemicals damage the soil microbiota by decreasing and altering microbial biomass and soil microbiome composition (diversity). Pesticide use contaminates soil and results in a bacteria-dominant ecosystem as these chemicals cause “vacant ecological niches, so organisms that were rare become abundant and vice versa.”  The bacteria outcompete beneficial fungi, which improves soil productivity and increases carbon sequestration capacity. The resulting soil ecosystem is unhealthy and imbalanced, with a reduction in the natural cycling of nutrients and resilience. Thus, plants grown in such conditions are more vulnerable to parasites and pathogens. The implications of climate change only exacerbate threats on soil health as studies show a link between global climate change and a high loss of microbial organisms in the soil ecosystem.

This review showcases commonality among the aforementioned environmental contaminants via their endocrine-disrupting capabilities. Bisphenols (BPAs) increase the presence of Methanobrevibacter, bacterial microbes, in humans and mice. Methanobrevibacte boosts their host’s ability to extract more energy from food, leading to BPA-induced weight gain and obesity. Phthalates in plastics leach onto foods and, ingestion of the chemical inhibits the formation of the metabolite, butyrate. This metabolic molecule is essential in human intestinal health, immunological health, and neurological function. PFC exposure induces genetic changes in gut health, and those offspring exhibiting a shift in their microbiome have a higher mortality rate. Multi-species evaluations find that various pesticides (i.e., insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) alter the gut microbiome, lipid metabolism, and cause intestinal inflammation and oxidative stress. Specifically, the review mentions that exposure to pesticides glyphosate and chlorpyrifos, as well as other registered pesticides, increases anxiety and depression symptoms in mice, pathogenic bacteria in cattle, and inflammation and oxidative stress in the gut.

Environmental contaminants, like pesticides, are of specific concern as the Trump administration  dismantles many environmental regulations.Additionally, the administration has waived the requirement of the multinational chemical company Syngenta-ChemChina to continue monitoring Midwest waterways for the presence of the weed killer atrazine, through 2020. Even with prior monitoring of water systems, atrazine was present in 78% of drinking water across the U.S., and several Midwestern communities have seasonal exceedances up to three to seven times the legal limit of atrazine in drinking water. With evidence, it is apparent that the federal government should implement strong safeguards that avoid harmful impacts of pesticide exposure on human, animal, and environmental microbiomes.

To improve and sustain our gut microbiome health, the use of toxic pesticides must stop. Instead, emphasis on converting to regenerative-organic systems and using least-toxic pest control to mitigate harmful exposure to pesticides, restore soil health, and reduce carbon emissions, should be the main focus. Public policy must advance this shift, rather than continue to allow unnecessary reliance on pesticides. Learn more about soil microbiota and its importance via Beyond Pesticide’s journal Pesticides and You. Additionally, learn more about the effects of pesticides on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. 

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

Sources: Toxicological Sciences, University of Illinois

(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2020) Bayer’s Monsanto is requesting non-regulated status for corn that will increase the use of drift-prone and toxic herbicides. This means that the planting of a new genetically engineered (GE) variety of corn, which requires substantial weed killer use, will not be restricted in any way. The syndrome of ‘more-corn, more-pesticides, more-poisoning, more-contamination’ must stop—as we effect an urgent systemic transformation to productive and profitable organic production practices. Because USDA is proposing to allow a new herbicide-dependent crop under the Plant Protection Act, the agency must, but does not, consider the adverse impacts associated with the production practices on other plants and the effects on the soil in which they are grown. Business as usual is not an option for a livable future.

Sign the petition. Tell USDA we don’t need more use of 2,4-D, Dicamba, and other toxic herbicides associated with the planting of new GE corn.

Bayer-Monsanto has developed multi-herbicide tolerant MON 87429 maize, which is tolerant to the herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, glufosinate, and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (so-called “FOP” herbicides, such as quizalofop). Now the company wants this corn to be deregulated—allowing it to be planted and the herbicides use without any restrictions. The petition below, and our formal comments explain the dangers in greater detail. 

2,4-D is a phenoxy herbicide that is as well known for its propensity to drift as it is for its damaging health and environmental effects. Approval of Bayer-Monsanto’s application would result in adverse impacts and contamination, along with the demonstrated plant-damaging effects. Over the decades of its use, 2,4-D has been linked to an increased risk of birth defects, reduced sperm counts, increased risk of non Hodgkin lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, and hormone disruption, as well as other health problems.  

2,4-D drift has long been a known problem to off-site locations, endangered species, and non-target crops. Many forms of 2,4-D volatilize above 85oF and 2,4-D drift has been known to damage tomatoes, grapes, and other plants. Herbicide concentrations 100 times below the recommended label rate have been reported to cause injury to grapes.

Dicamba is a selective benzoic acid herbicide similar in structure and mode of action to phenoxy herbicides like 2,4-D. We have concerns that increased use of dicamba will lead to elevated human and environmental exposures, and especially via contamination of waterways. Concerns about dicamba drift have already proved to be valid. First registered in the late 1960s, dicamba has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, birth defects, and kidney and liver damage. It is also toxic to birds, fish and other aquatic organisms, and known to leach into waterways after an application. It is a notoriously drift-prone herbicide. Studies and court filings show dicamba able to drift well over a mile off-site after an application.

Glyphosate is a broad spectrum, post-emergent, non-selective systemic herbicide used on non-cropland, as well as a variety of crops. It has seen the largest use in crops that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to it, where it can kill most grassy and broadleaved plants. Glyphosate products, such as Monsanto’s Roundup, are formulated with surfactants and other ingredients to increase its effectiveness as a weed killer.

Reviews of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides demonstrate a growing scientific consensus and concern about their health, environmental, and social impacts. A group of well-known and respected scientists collaborated on a consensus “Statement of Concern” stating that glyphosate is more persistent in the environment than previously believed and that evidence has accumulated over the past two decades, showing that glyphosate-based herbicides have serious impacts on human health and the environment, the extent of which has yet to be fully determined. Epidemiological studies—in which exposure is to formulated products rather than the technical grade active ingredient glyphosate—have found a positive association between exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and cancer.

On March 20, 2015, the  International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that it had classified glyphosate as a class 2A carcinogen, as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” This category is the most definitive of any based on standard laboratory animal testing. An April 2019 report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) — an agency of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — documented evidence of findings that support glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

Glyphosate is also an antibiotic and, as such, has negative impacts on the human gut biota. The imbalance (dysbiosis) of bacteria in the gut has been associated with many modern diseases. Use of antibiotics, like glyphosate, in agriculture allows residues of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria to emerge on agricultural lands, move through the environment, contaminate waterways, and ultimately reach consumers in food. Both the human gut and contaminated waterways provide incubators for antibiotic resistance. 

The Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides summarizes the effects of glufosinate:

Glufosinate is a broad-spectrum herbicide that kills plants by inhibiting the enzyme glutamine synthetase, an enzyme also found in animals, including humans. Glufosinate chemically resembles glutamine, a molecule used to transmit nerve impulses in the brain. Neurotoxic symptoms observed in laboratory animals following ingestion, dermal exposure, or inhalation of glufosinate include convulsions, diarrhea, aggressiveness, and disequilibrium. Dogs appear to be the laboratory animal most sensitive to glufosinate. Ingestion of glufosinate for two weeks caused heart and circulatory failure resulting in death. Exposure of pregnant laboratory animals to glufosinate caused an increase in premature delivery, miscarriages, the number of dead fetuses, and arrested development of fetal kidneys. Concentrations of a glufosinate-containing herbicide of less than one part per million cause mortality of oyster and clam larvae. Several species of disease-causing fungi are resistant to glufosinate, while a beneficial fungus that parasitizes disease-causing fungi is very susceptible to glufosinate. This means that use of glufosinate can have “important microbiological consequences.

Quizalofop is a developmental and reproductive toxin and recognized as an endocrine disruptor by the EU. It carries the signal word “Danger” and requires full protective equipment. The label carries the signal word “Danger,” warning of health and environmental hazards.

Dicamba and 2,4-D vapor drift and subsequent crop injury to sensitive broadleaf crops have been frequent problems. Abnormal leaf growth, floral development, reduced yield, and reduced quality have all been observed from dicamba drift. These impacts have severe economic consequences for non-GE and organic farmers. The burden should not be placed on these farmers to protect themselves from drift with best management practices. 

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) cannot assume that the environmental impacts associated with herbicide drift will be mitigated by the registration requirements established by EPA on pesticide labels. Unfortunately, label directions have been shown to have no effect on decreasing spray drift. In fact, EPA has acknowledged this and has attempted to review and revise pesticide labeling guidance. EPA’s efforts to mitigate against potential risks from drift by requiring buffer zones and application restrictions have proven ineffective. 

USDA Must Deny Monsanto’s Petition. APHIS has a responsibility under the law, the Plant Protection Act, to prohibit and/or restrict any plant or plant product that poses a risk to the environment. APHIS must fully review the salient impacts of multi-herbicide-tolerant MON 87429 corn, and the expected increase in use of drift-prone and toxic herbicides and reject the petition for deregulation. 

GE crops are not the solution for glyphosate resistant weeds created by glyphosate-resistant GE crops. Had a proper environmental assessment been conducted by APHIS on previous GE decisions, the economic and environmental threat of resistant, invasive weeds may have been avoided. It is time for the agency to focus on other sustainable, integrated methods for long-term weed management, which allow our nation’s farmers to get off the toxic treadmill. 

USDA/APHIS must not escalate the American agricultural economy’s broad reliance on herbicides because of the failure of glyphosate GE technologies. Now is the time to concede that GE technologies have not lived up to their promises and encourage our nation’s farmers to return to more sustainable methods of farming.

Sign the petition. Tell USDA we don’t need more use of 2,4-D, Dicamba, and other toxic herbicides associated with the planting of new GE corn.

Thank you!
The Beyond Pesticides Team

PETITION to USDA

To USDA/APHIS Docket:

The undersigned oppose Monsanto’s petition to deregulate multi-herbicide tolerant MON 87429 maize, which is tolerant to the herbicides 2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, glufosinate, and aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors (so called “FOP” herbicides such as quizalofop). We support the detailed comments submitted by Beyond Pesticides.

2,4-D
2,4-D is a phenoxy herbicide that is as well known for its propensity to drift as it is for its damaging health and environmental effects, which means that potential adverse impacts and contamination from this highly toxic herbicide will also increase, along with the demonstrated plant-damaging effects if the petition is approved. The scientific literature shows the hazards of 2,4-D. Over the decades of its use, 2,4-D has been linked to an increased risk of birth defects, reduced sperm counts, increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, and hormone disruption, as well as other health problems. 

2,4-D drift is a major concern, especially for those who live adjacent to and near agricultural areas. 2,4-D is known to drift into homes, where it can stay in the indoor environment for up to a year, further exposing these communities to 2,4-D. The risk from drift that will occur under a best case and worst-case scenario cannot go ignored.

2,4-D drift has long been a known problem to off-site locations, endangered species, and non-target crops. Many forms of 2,4-D volatilize above 85oF and 2,4-D drift has been known to damage tomatoes, grapes, and other plants. Herbicide concentrations 100 times below the recommended label rate have been reported to cause injury to grapes. Drift can injure plants half a mile or more from the application site. In addition to non-target plants, 2,4-D can impact species listed under the jurisdiction of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) identified 2,4-D as likely to jeopardize all listed salmonids, based on current registration and label directions.

Dicamba
Dicamba is a selective benzoic acid herbicide similar in structure and mode of action to phenoxy herbicides like 2,4-D. We have concerns that increased use of dicamba will lead to elevated human and environmental exposures, and especially via contamination of waterways. Concerns about dicamba drift have already proved to be valid. First registered in the late 1960s, dicamba has been linked to cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, birth defects, and kidney and liver damage. It is also toxic to birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms, and known to leach into waterways after an application. It is a notoriously drift-prone herbicide. Studies and court filings show dicamba able to drift well over a mile off-site after an application.

Bayer’s Monsanto thought it could solve this problem. But we have seen what happened. When it introduced its dicamba-resistant soybeans and cotton, reports of damage began to spring up throughout the U.S. Non-soybean farmers began taking action. Bader Farms, the largest peach farm in Missouri, won a suit against Monsanto, securing compensation for damage and defoliation of its trees after illegal dicamba use. The dicamba scandal pitted farmer against farmer, tearing apart many agricultural communities. As reported by NPR, one Arkansas farmer was killed in a dispute with his neighbor that involved use of dicamba herbicides.

In February 2020, Missouri’s Bader Farms was awarded $265 million in compensation from Monsanto and BASF (another maker of a GE dicamba-based herbicide) for the damage caused to their peach farm. Critically, the jury determined that the joint venture between the two companies amounted to a conspiracy to create an “ecological disaster” in the name of profit. Then in June, a federal court vacated EPA’s 2018 conditional registration of three dicamba weed killer products for use on an estimated 60 million acres of DT (dicamba-tolerant through genetic modification/engineering) soybeans and cotton.

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

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

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

Glyphosate
Glyphosate (N-phosphono-methyl glycine) is a broad spectrum, post-emergent, non-selective systemic herbicide used on non-cropland, as well as a variety of crops. It has seen the largest use in crops that are genetically engineered to be tolerant to it, where it can kill most grassy and broadleaved plants. Glyphosate products, such as Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup™, are formulated with surfactants and other ingredients to increase its effectiveness. 

The use of glyphosate has been increasing steadily. As a result, glyphosate residues are being detected in tissues and excretions of farm animals, as well as human urine. Bøhn et al. found that glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready™ soybeans and also contains a different nutritional profile from organic and non-genetically engineered soybeans.
Reviews of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides demonstrate a growing scientific consensus and concern about their health, environmental, and social impacts. A group of well-known and respected scientists collaborated on a consensus “Statement of Concern” stating that glyphosate is more persistent in the environment than previously believed and that evidence has accumulated over the past two decades showing that glyphosate-based herbicides have serious impacts on human health and the environment, the extent of which has yet to be fully determined.

Contrary to EPA’s finding of evidence of non-carcinogenicity, epidemiological studies—in which exposure is to formulated products rather than the technical grade active ingredient glyphosate—have found a positive association between exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and cancer. On March 20, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that it had classified glyphosate as a class 2A carcinogen, as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” This category is the most definitive of any based on standard laboratory animal testing. An April 2019 report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)—an agency of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—documented evidence of findings that support glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

Glyphosate is also an antibiotic and, as such, has negative impacts on the human gut biota. The imbalance (dysbiosis) of bacteria in the gut has been associated with many modern diseases. They include diarrhea, inflammatory bowel disease, activation of HIV infection, allergies, infection by Clostridium difficile and other pathogenic bacteria, autism, liver disease, atherosclerosis, pancreatitis, diabetes, obesity, fibromyalgia, polycystic ovary syndrome, and others. The fact that such diseases are linked to dysbiosis of the gut does not in itself prove that glyphosate causes them. However, the increase in these diseases is correlated tightly with increases in the use of glyphosate. Glyphosate is the most widely used antibiotic in agriculture, and agricultural use of antibiotics dwarfs the use of antibiotics in human medicine.

With the explosion of antibiotic resistance in the U.S. and worldwide, antibiotic use in crop and livestock production is a major public health issue. Use of antibiotics, like glyphosate, in agriculture allows residues of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria to emerge on agricultural lands, move through the environment, contaminate waterways, and ultimately reach consumers in food. Both the human gut and contaminated waterways provide incubators for antibiotic resistance. 

Glufosinate
The Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides summarizes the effects of glufosinate:

Glufosinate is a broad-spectrum herbicide that kills plants by inhibiting the enzyme glutamine synthetase, an enzyme also found in animals, including humans. Glufosinate chemically resembles glutamine, a molecule used to transmit nerve impulses in the brain. Neurotoxic symptoms observed in laboratory animals following ingestion, dermal exposure, or inhalation of glufosinate include convulsions, diarrhea, aggressiveness, and disequilibrium. Dogs appear to be the laboratory animal most sensitive to glufosinate. Ingestion of glufosinate for two weeks caused heart and circulatory failure resulting in death. Exposure of pregnant laboratory animals to glufosinate caused an increase in premature delivery, miscarriages, the number of dead fetuses, and arrested development of fetal kidneys. Concentrations of a glufosinate-containing herbicide of less than one part per million cause mortality of oyster and clam larvae. Several species of disease-causing fungi are resistant to glufosinate, while a beneficial fungi that parasitizes disease-causing fungi is very susceptible to glufosinate. This means that use of glufosinate can have “important microbiological consequences.

Quizalofop
Quizalofop is a developmental and reproductive toxin and recognized as an endocrine disruptor by the EU. It carries the signal word “Danger” and requires full protective equipment. The label warns, “DANGER! Causes irreversible eye damage. Harmful if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, or clothing. Avoid breathing vapor or spray mist.”

The label also warns of environmental hazards: “This pesticide is toxic to fish and invertebrates. Do not apply directly to water, or to areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal areas below the mean high-water mark. . . This product may contaminate water through drift of spray in wind. This product has a potential for runoff for several months or more after application. Poorly drained soils and soils with shallow water tables are more prone to produce runoff that contains this product.”

Volatility and Drift Endanger the Environment
Dicamba and 2,4-D vapor drift and subsequent crop injury to sensitive broadleaf crops have been frequent problems. Abnormal leaf growth, floral development, reduced yield, and reduced quality have all been observed from dicamba drift. These impacts have severe economic consequences for non-GE and organic farmers. The burden should not be placed on these farmers to protect themselves from drift with best management practices that may not even offer adequate protection.

APHIS cannot assume that the environmental impacts associated with herbicide drift will be mitigated by the registration requirements established by EPA on pesticide labels. Unfortunately, label directions have been shown to have no effect on decreasing spray drift. In fact, EPA has acknowledged this and has attempted to review and revise pesticide labeling guidance. EPA’s efforts to mitigate against potential risks from drift by requiring buffer zones and application restrictions have proven ineffective.

USDA Must Deny Monsanto’s Petition
APHIS has a responsibility under the law to prohibit and/or restrict any plant or plant product that poses a risk to the environment. APHIS must fully review the salient impacts of multi-herbicide-tolerant MON 87429 corn, and the expected increase in use of drift-prone and toxic herbicides. We urge the agency to reject the petition for deregulation. To allow new GE material into the environment against the backdrop of documented problems created by other herbicide-tolerant GE crops takes U.S. agriculture in a wrong and hazardous direction and violates the Plant Protection Act. GE gene flow in the environment and increased herbicide dependency have been left unchecked for many years, resulting in an increasing population of resistant weeds and insects that are becoming more and more difficult and costly to control. Additionally, the drift has destroyed habitat for insects that offer farmers ecosystem services that have important economic value.

GE crops are not the solution for glyphosate resistant weeds created by glyphosate-resistant GE crops. Had a proper environmental assessment been conducted by APHIS on previous GE decisions, the economic and environmental threat of resistant, invasive weeds may have been avoided. It is time for the agency to focus on other sustainable, integrated methods for long-term weed management, which allow our nation’s farmers to get off the toxic treadmill.

APHIS must use its full statutory authority and reject the petition to deregulate multi-herbicide-tolerant MON 87429 corn by citing the plant-damaging and invasive-weed propagating risks that have not been fully evaluated by the petitioner when considered alongside the accompanying use of these herbicides. We urge APHIS to consider both the environmental effects and human health effects that this dangerous combination will pose and to deny petitioner’s request for deregulation.

USDA/APHIS must not to escalate the American agricultural economy’s broad reliance on herbicides because of the failure of glyphosate GE technologies. Now is the time to acknowledge that GE technologies have not lived up to their promises and encourage our nation’s farmers to return to more sustainable methods of farming.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2020) A court decision in California, challenging a cancer warning on products containing the weed killer glyphosate, highlights the distinct  ways in which scientific findings are applied under regulatory standards, in toxic tort cases evaluated by juries, and by consumers in the marketplace. These differences came into focus as a U.S. court quashed California’s decision to require cancer warning labels on glyphosate products on June 22. The ruling, by Judge William Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, bars the state from requiring labeling that warns of potential carcinogenicity on such herbicides.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. At this point, Monsanto began a worldwide campaign to challenge glyphosate’s cancer classification. The IARC finding spurred the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, in the same year, to announce that glyphosate would be listed as a probable cancer-causing chemical under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). With that announcement came another: the state would mandate that cancer warning labels be applied to glyphosate-based products in the state when any of four legal requirements were met. Put simply, Prop 65 requires businesses to “provide warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. Monsanto’s campaign had been mostly unsuccessful, except that the Trump administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared in 2017 that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic. Following California’s listing of glyphosate under Prop 65 in 2017, Monsanto sued the state to challenge that listing in Fresno County Superior Court and lost. The company then brought suit (along with a variety of industry stakeholders) against California (and the state’s Attorney General) in federal court in late 2017, claiming that the state’s plan to list glyphosate as a probable carcinogen comprised “unconstitutional forced speech.”

The judge cited as justification for the ruling that: (1) scientific evidence of the carcinogenicity of glyphosate is insufficient to merit such a warning on product labels, and (2) mandating that glyphosate product manufacturers use such labels would comprise “compelled speech,” in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Meanwhile, just two days before the ruling Bayer-Monsanto announced an over $10 billion settlement covering 90,000+ lawsuits against the company filed by those who linked their non Hodgkins lymphoma to glyphosate exposure. (See more below.)

Glyphosate — the active ingredient in Monsanto’s (now Bayer’s) Roundup^TM, the most-used herbicide in the U.S. for nearly two decades — is used very intensively around the world as a weed killer, particularly with Monsanto’s companion seeds for soybeans, cotton, corn, canola, alfalfa, and other crops. These seeds are genetically engineered to be glyphosate tolerant, meaning that growers can apply the herbicide to fields of these crops with an expectation that it will kill weeds and not harm the plant.

In reality, use of glyphosate herbicides has been marked by myriad harms to people and the environment: health impacts (e.g., contributions to cardiac, metabolic, endocrine, respiratory, reproductive, gastrointestinal, and immune dysfunction); threats to numerous organisms (fish, amphibians, and aquatic and terrestrial plants, and some endangered species); and transgenerational health impacts. In addition, as all organisms do, many target plants are developing resistance to the compound, resulting in ever-more intensive and unnerving uses and rollouts of “new” (often with multiple active compounds) pesticides. Beyond Pesticides has covered the many links between glyphosate (and adjuvant ingredients in product formulations) and these myriad health issues.

The long litany of glyphosate lawsuits and appeals is dizzying. Those cases have addressed a variety of issues related to glyphosate’s use, and three high-profile cases that resulted in big-dollar awards to people whose exposures led to development of non Hodgkin lymphoma. (Those cases are currently moving through the judicial appeals process.) The jury in Pilliod v. Monsanto issued a $2 billion verdict based on evidence, not only of the herbicide’s carcinogenicity, but also of Monsanto’s role in suppressing and discrediting independent findings regarding Roundup™ toxicity. In an interview with U.S. Right to Know’s Carey Gillam, co-lead trial counsel Michael Miller said, “Unlike the first two Monsanto trials, where the judges severely limited the amount of plaintiffs’ evidence, we were finally allowed to show a jury the mountain of evidence showing Monsanto’s manipulation of science, the media and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda despite Roundup’s severe harm to the animal kingdom and humankind.” See the Monsanto Papers.

In a recent development, Bayer, facing some 125,000 lawsuits for claims of harm by glyphosate, announced on June 24 its agreement to pay more than $10 billion to settle approximately 75% of those suits. (The three cases mentioned above are not part of this settlement.)

U.S. Right to Know reports: “Bayer said future Roundup claims will be part of a class agreement subject to approval by Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who ordered the year-long mediation process that led to the settlement. The agreement would take any future findings on cancer claims out of the hands of juries, Bayer said. Instead, there will be the creation of an independent ‘Class Science Panel.’ The Class Science Panel will determine whether Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and if so, at what minimum exposure levels. Both the plaintiffs in the class action and Bayer will be bound by the Class Science Panel’s determination.”

This provision removes these cases from the jury process, which has been successful for the three high-profile cases. Beyond Pesticides reports, “The Class Science Panel’s determination is expected to take several years. Class members will not be permitted to proceed with Roundup™ claims prior to the Class Science Panel’s determination, and cannot seek punitive damages.” It will be important for Beyond Pesticides and other advocates to monitor the work of this Class Science Panel as it evaluates evidence and makes its determinations.

Direct context for the California District Court decision includes a number of lawsuits and resulting outcomes. Following California’s listing of glyphosate under Prop 65, Monsanto sued the state to challenge that listing in Fresno County Superior Court and lost. The company then brought suit (along with a variety of industry stakeholders) against California (and the state’s Attorney General) in federal court in late 2017, claiming that the state’s plan to list glyphosate as a probable carcinogen comprised “unconstitutional forced speech.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared in 2017 that glyphosate was likely not carcinogenic — contradicting (IARC’s) 2015 classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

In 2018, Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association prevailed against Monsanto’s motion to dismiss their lawsuit, which addressed not California’s situation, but glyphosate labeling broadly. In the case, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly found that the plaintiffs had provided “enough evidence to support that Monsanto’s labeling of its flagship weed killer, Roundup, misleads consumers.” In that same year, a California Appellate Court ruled against Monsanto’s challenge to the state’s Prop 65 label listing. Also in 2018, Judge Shubb issued a preliminary injunction preventing California regulators from requiring the cancer warning labels.

In 2019, EPA refused to approve product labels with carcinogenicity warnings. In January of 2020, EPA released an interim decision on glyphosate, asserting a “lack of evidence the chemical causes cancer in humans.” Perhaps anticipating the potential impacts of the maxim, “as goes California, so goes the nation,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler then commented, “It is irresponsible to require labels on products that are inaccurate when EPA knows the product does not pose a cancer risk. We will not allow California’s flawed program to dictate federal policy.” EPA’s stance on glyphosate is currently informed by the pro-business, anti-environment, public health–indifferent Trump administration.

Globally, most regulators have decided that glyphosate herbicides are “safe” enough to use — despite the documented harms of exposure. As reported by The New York Times, “Regulators worldwide have determined glyphosate to be safe with the exception of the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm [IARC], which determined the herbicide to be a ‘probable carcinogen’ in 2015. [Judge] Shubb on Monday said that finding alone did not support California’s requirement to label glyphosate products with the term ‘known to the state of California to cause cancer.’”

This June 2020 subject decision came in a suit brought against California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, by Monsanto and a host of trade associations for pesticide manufacturers, agribusinesses, growers, and retailers. It confirmed Judge Shubb’s 2018 preliminary injunction, and asserted: “[I]t is inherently misleading for a warning to state that a chemical is known to the state of California to cause cancer based on the finding of one organization . . . when apparently all other regulatory and governmental bodies have found the opposite. . . . Providing misleading or false labels to consumers also undermines California’s interest in accurately informing its citizens of health risks at the expense of plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. . . . Accordingly, the balance of equities and public interest weigh in favor of permanently enjoining Proposition 65’s warning requirement for glyphosate.”

The 34-page decision continues, “California has options available to inform consumers of its determination that glyphosate is a carcinogen, without burdening the free speech of businesses, including advertising campaigns or posting information on the Internet (noting that even assuming an advertising campaign would be less effective at broadcasting California’s message than mandated disclosures, the state may not ‘co-opt’ businesses ‘to deliver its message for it’ because ‘the First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency’).” The court denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration, and Monsanto, et al., welcomed the decision, saying in a statement, “It is widely regarded as one of the safest herbicides ever developed, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does not pose any risk of cancer.”

Judge Shubb’s decision did not comment on whether or not glyphosate has a carcinogenic role; it went only to the “level” of evidence for carcinogenicity and to the First Amendment argument. Juries in the “big three” glyphosate awards cases appear to have had a different take on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

Despite the financial and reputational costs to date (with more to come) of Bayer’s glyphosate products, the company appears intent on continuing production and sale of its glyphosate products. Indeed, as Beyond Pesticides reports, “The company said that before deciding to settle, it considered the alternative course of continuing to litigate Roundup™ cases. In the company’s risk assessment, potential negative outcomes of further litigation, including more advertising and growing numbers of plaintiffs, upwards of twenty trials per year and uncertain jury outcomes, and associated reputational and business impacts, likely would substantially exceed the settlement and related costs.” That sounds like a company looking to the future viability of its product line.

Although Bayer logged a “win” in the California labeling suit, the outcome is anything but for residents of the state, and for the U.S. public. With this addition to the ongoing failures of the federal government — whether legislative, executive, or judicial — to enact and enforce protections from glyphosate herbicides, at this moment it falls largely to individuals to protect themselves as best they can. Avoidance of exposure to glyphosate is best achieved in several ways:

• purchase organic food
• avoid use of glyphosate products in home gardens or on lawns
• pay attention to water quality reporting for local water supplies for evidence of contamination
• encourage farmworker and applicator protections
• advocate with supermarkets, garden centers, hardware stores, farmers, golf courses, school districts, and local and state decision makers for nontoxic, organic land managementand agriculture
• advocate for passage of a local organic land management policy

Beyond Pesticides has for years monitored developments in the glyphosate saga and advocated for the removal of this dangerous compound from use. This pesticide and hundreds of others on the market and being brought to market, tell the story of a failed federal regulatory system that requires a fundamental overhaul. It provides the justification for the adoption of local and state laws that embrace practices that eliminate toxic pesticides and advance organic management. Beyond Pesticides, and other public and environmental health advocates, will continue the work to move this country — at federal, state, and local levels — toward genuinely precautionary and safe approaches with organic systems.

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

Sources: https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-halts-california-bid-for-cancer-warning-on-roundup/ and https://www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/courts/2020-06-22-155-Memorandum.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Bayer press release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: FOX25, TCPalm, Michigan Tech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: PLOS One, Science Daily press release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAKE ACTION—Three Things You Can Do Today

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

Thank you!
—The Beyond Pesticides Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source(s): Environmental Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: CBS WINK Southwest Florida

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

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

Tell Congress to save our oceans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tell Congress to save our oceans.

Thank you!
The Beyond Pesticides Team

Letter to Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please act to strengthen protections for our oceans.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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