(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2019) The recently published report Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Fiscal Year 2017 Pesticide Report, from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), provides data on the levels of pesticide residues that show up on the foods U.S. consumers eat. The report adds fuel to public concern about contamination of the food supply, and to discussion in the scientific and advocacy communities about what is and is not safe for human health. It is also a sobering reminder of just how much chemical-intensive agriculture depends on pesticides, whether insecticides, herbicides, or fungicides.

This FDA report has been prepared annually since 1987 and is based on the agency’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, which evaluates both domestically produced and imported human food samples, including fruit, vegetable, and animal products. As the report notes, “Three federal government agencies share responsibility for the regulation and oversight of pesticide chemical residues in or on food. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers (i.e., approves) the use of pesticides and establishes tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in or on food resulting from the use of the pesticides. Tolerances are the EPA-established maximum residue levels (MRLs) of a specific pesticide chemical that is permitted in or on a human or animal food in the United States. EPA also provides a strong U.S. preventive controls program by licensing pesticide applicators, conducting pesticide use inspections, and establishing and enforcing pesticide labeling provisions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces tolerances in both import foods and domestic foods shipped in interstate commerce, except for meat, poultry, catfish, and certain egg products for which the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible. FDA also monitors pesticide chemical residue levels in commodities representative of the U.S. diet by carrying out market basket surveys under the Total Diet Study (TDS).”

Among the unsavory metrics in the 2017 report — based on samples from California, New York, Texas, Kansas, and Wisconsin — are that pesticide residues were found in 84% of domestic fruits, 53% of vegetables, 42% of grains, and 73% of samples categorized as “other” (nuts, seeds, oils, honey, candy, beverages, spices, multi-ingredient products, and dietary supplements). Small percentages (less than 3%) of domestic grains, fruits, and “other” products had “violative” levels of residues — those that register above the tolerances set by EPA. However, nearly 10% of vegetables harbored violative levels of pesticide residues.

Levels of residues in specific U.S. commodities tested include, e.g.: 88% of apples and apple juice; 87% of grapes, grape juice, and raisins; 91% of lemons and lemon juice; 92.6% of nectarines and nectarine juice; 84% of strawberries; 87% of kale; 82% of spinach; 86.6% of cucumbers; and 80% of refined oils.

For imported goods, samples of which came from more than 40 countries (including Mexico, Canada, China, and India), outcomes were both better and worse. Residue levels on imported fruits (as a category) were found on 52.3% of samples, as compared with 84% on domestic fruit. Grains came in at 23% with pesticide residue, whereas in U.S. samples, that figure was nearly 42%. On the other hand, domestic dairy and eggs registered only a 4.7% residue rate, while imports came in at 33.3%. Inexplicably, the report lists no outcomes for domestically harvested fish, while imported fish without any pesticide residue logged in at a noteworthy 82.5% residue free.

Across all categories, violative levels of pesticide residue were 3.8% for domestic products and 10.4% for imported goods. Those figures are functions, primarily, of a high violative reading for domestic vegetables (9.4%), and for imports, of high readings for grains (14.1%), fruits (7.9%), vegetables (12.5%), and “other” (8.2%).

What are all these pesticides found in the food supply? Across 6,069 samples, 221 discrete pesticide compounds were detected, including six that had never previously been found via the FDA monitoring program. Also detected, in 34 samples, was the infamous and banned-since-1972 DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), which speaks to its long persistence in the environment and to its continued use in some parts of Africa, Asia, and South America.

Neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides were found across a multitude of samples; some of those include: imidacloprid (in 470 samples), thiamexotham (257), acetamiprid (206), clothianidin (145), and dinotefuran (45). Fungicides were found abundantly: boscalid (438), azoxystrobin (348), pyraclostrobin (293), fludioxonil (279), tebuconazole (253), and many others. Organophosphates were also well represented, e.g.: chlorpyrifos (265), malathion (191), phosmet (44), diazinon (38), and dichlorvos (22). To read more about any of these compounds visit Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.

Earlier in 2019, Friends of the Earth released a report — Toxic Secret — on pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply. Its more-narrow focus found that oat cereals, apples, applesauce, spinach, and pinto beans at four huge food retailers (Kroger, Walmart, Albertson’s, and Costco) contained residues of glyphosate, organophosphates, and neonicotinoids. As Beyond Pesticides reported, “The average level of glyphosate found in cereal samples (360 parts per billion) was more than twice the level set by scientists at Environmental Working Group for lifetime cancer risk for children. The average level of glyphosate found in pinto beans (509 ppb) was more than 4.5 times the benchmark.”

Remarkably, despite the presence of pesticides in so much of the food supply (as the FDA report shows), federal regulators continue to say, basically, “not to worry.” EPA maintains that as long as a residue registers under whatever the “tolerance” is for a particular compound, the pesticide does not pose significant risk to human health. There are several problems with this stance. One is that there is abundant evidence that pesticides do pose risks to human health, never mind to other organisms and the environment broadly. Another is that EPA’s methodologies for assessing risk are flawed and inadequate, as Beyond Pesticides has reported repeatedly.

Too, some tolerances have risen over time — not typically because of science, but because of industry pressure. As Cary Gillam reports for EcoWatch, “The EPA has approved several increases allowed for glyphosate residues in food, for instance. As well, the agency often makes the determination that it need not comply with a legal requirement that states the EPA ‘shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children’ in setting the legal levels for pesticide residues. The EPA has overridden that requirement in the setting of many pesticide tolerances, saying no such extra margin of safety is needed to protect children.” Of course, as tolerances climb, violative levels will be less frequently reported by FDA; and given the chemical industry’s influence on the administration and Congress, the greater the amounts of these chemical residues that will show up in the food supply.

The unholy, back-channel alliances between industry and regulatory agencies is old news, but it has become more robust since the advent of the Trump administration, which appears determined to advantage industry over human well-being by rolling back regulations, reducing enforcement of existing rules, and exploiting opportunities to diminish the role of science in regulation. Both the science community and the public are growing increasingly concerned with the saturation of the food supply with chemical inputs. The issue has gained greater visibility recently with well-publicized lawsuits brought against the makers of glyphosate-based herbicides.

Beyond Pesticides has monitored the pesticide “universe” for decades, reports on research and regulatory developments, and advocates for a transition to agricultural and other systems that don’t depend on toxic inputs. Stay current through the website, the Daily News Blog, and the journal, Pesticides and You, and consider becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides.

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

Sources: https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticides-fruits-vegetables-fda-health-2641133675.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 and https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticides-fruits-vegetables-fda-health-2641133675.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2019) Last week the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must assess the risk eight toxic pesticides pose to protected organisms: atrazine, carbaryl, methomyl, and simazine as well as rodenticides brodifacoum, bromadiolone, warfarin and zinc phosphide.

The plaintiffs, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) asserted that EPA and its then administrator Scott Pruitt violated duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by not consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service in registering these pesticides. The history of this case extends over 8 years. Last year, the court rejected EPA’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit.

According to CBD’s press release, “Under the agreement the agency must complete assessments of four pesticides, including atrazine, the nation’s second most-used pesticide, by 2021. Assessments of four rodenticides, including the widely used rat poison brodifacoum, must be finalized in 2024.”

Stephanie Parent, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said “This important step is only the start. We still have work to do to make sure the EPA addresses the harms of all pesticides, as the law requires.

EPA was created after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring brought attention to the detrimental impact of the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Instead of heeding the original call of duty that its name implies, advocates say EPA is ignoring the harm these toxic chemicals cause to people and the environment until brought to heel by the courts.

“It is inappropriate that environmental groups are forced to expend time and resources in order to get EPA to simply do its job as the law requires,” says Barbara Dale, Public Education Manager at Beyond Pesticides.

Some alarming “fun” facts on a few of these toxic chemicals:

>> Atrazine is the second most widely-used herbicide in the U.S., and it is a known endocrine disruptor. Even at low levels it chemically castrates frogs. Beyond Pesticides wrote about this chemical last December, “During peak use, atrazine levels in drinking water [in the Midwest] have been recorded at three to seven times above the legal limit. In addition to the well documented impact on the environment, recent studies have linked prolonged pesticide exposure to not only shortened gestation and preterm birth for women, but also neurodevelopment delays in children.”

>> Carbaryl is classified as a likely carcinogen by EPA. The production of carbaryl can involve using methyl isocyanate (MIC) as an intermediary; a leak of MIC during production of carbaryl caused the Bhopal disaster, the most lethal industrial accident in history with over 500,000 injuries and 20,000 fatalities – 8,000 of which were instant. Wikileaks revealed in 2012 that Dow Chemical engaged an intelligence research organization to spy on activists involved in advocating for victims of the Bhopal disaster.

>> Anticoagulant rodenticides such as brodifacoum travel up the food chain and cause secondary poisonings to mammals and birds.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a regulatory approach to pesticides that prohibits high-risk chemical practices. Rather, the federal regulatory framework should focus on safer, effective alternatives, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the vast majority of toxic chemicals.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, October 30^th, 2019) This month, the Thai government moved to ban some toxic chemicals out of concern for the health of its residents and environment. In response, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Undersecretary Ted McKinney sent a document to Thailand’s Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha pushing back on their plan. As the Thai government makes changes to protect the health and represent the will of the people, the U.S. acts on behalf of its allegiance to agrichemical companies on an international stage.

After powerful and sustained activism from local advocacy groups such as BioThai, the Thai government decided to upgrade glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat from Type 3 toxic substances to Type 4, meaning these chemicals will no longer be allowed to be produced, imported, or possessed in the country. Witoon Lianchamroon, director of BioThai, says glyphosate and paraquat “contaminate our water, the soil, and some species like crab or fish or frog. These two main herbicides cover around half of the total pesticide use in the country and they cause a lot of problems.”

The ban was approved by the National Hazardous Substances Committee, made up of 29 experts in the field, on October 22. Beginning December 1, the ban will go into effect and residents will be asked to turn in leftover products to the government to be destroyed. While the ban doesn’t include agricultural products, Thai farmers who oppose the change are asking that Thailand also embargo imports of crops from countries that allow the chemicals – such as the U.S.

“Should a ban be implemented, it would severely impact Thailand’s imports of agricultural commodities such as soybeans and wheats,” wrote Mr. McKinney. According to USDA data, in 2018 the US exported $593 million worth of soybeans and $180 million of wheat to Thailand. Mr. McKinney asked Thailand to instead maintain the current maximum residue limits and postpone the ban before “fully considering the scientific evidence” regarding – particularly – glyphosate. The chemical company Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, exports glyphosate-based products to Thai farmers.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” in 2015. A study published earlier this month by an international team of researchers found the chemical had the potential to induce breast cancer when combined with other risk factors. US courts are finding glyphosate guilty, awarding millions of dollars to individuals who trace their cancer to the use of the chemical.

Despite all evidence of harm, the US government remains internationally adamant in its defense of toxic chemicals. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue was vocal on behalf of Bayer in April when Vietnam began its process of banning glyphosate due to health concerns in April. President Donald Trump urged Columbia to lift its restrictions on glyphosate aerial spraying in August, reportedly offering more funding if the aerial sprays were allowed to resume.

An official in the pesticide regulatory division at the Thai Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives told Bloomberg Environment that Thailand is moving toward organic farming and must destroy the chemicals because, “it’s not safe, not healthy.”

Other Thai officials also stand by the ban. Public health minister Anutin Charnvirak told Reuters, “Our job is to take care of the people’s health.” Mananya Thaiset, deputy minister of agriculture, said, “It’s not right to force us to take what we don’t want.”

The successful work of grassroots activists in Thailand offers encouragement to the global community of individuals who are fighting to create a world free of toxic pesticides. While the Trump Administration is unsympathetic to pesticide issues at best and corrupt at worst, it is still possible to build momentum in your local community and build power for the future. Read our Resources for a Pesticide-Free Community to start, and then give us a call at 202-543-5450 or email [email protected] for support.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes to the way farmworkers and bystanders are protected from toxic pesticide applications, per an announcement published on the agency’s website last week. Billed as “improvements” that will “reduce regulatory burdens for farmers,” the actions would instead significantly shrink Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs), buffer areas where individuals are not supposed to enter during a pesticide application.

Health and justice advocates say the move will put farmworkers at risk. “Although the proposal is framed as a narrow revision, it would in fact eliminate, reduce or weaken various AEZ provisions,” said Farmworker Justice attorney Iris Figueroa to Politico. “These changes threaten to increase exposure to toxic pesticide drift for farmworkers and their families.”

EPA’s proposal, announced in a press release featuring the heads of industry associations like the American Farm Bureau, would do the following:

• Make AEZs applicable only to a farm owners’ property. Under the current rules, pesticide handlers were required to keep individuals out of an area where pesticides were applied both on and off site.
• Exempt on-farm family members from all aspects of the AEZ. EPA says this will allow farmers and their family “to decide whether to stay in their homes or …on their property during certain pesticide applications, rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining.” Critics note that feeling safe and being safe are very different, one based on emotions and the other on science.
• Clarify that suspended pesticide applications may continue when an individual leaves an AEZ, and revise criteria around determining when a pesticide application is subject to an AEZ. Opposition to the proposal indicates these changes backtrack safety requirements and would shrink the type of pesticide applications covered under this rule.

The agrichemical industry has lobbied against the AEZ and other farmworker protections since they were revised during the Obama administration. The Obama-era revision occurred after 25 years of inaction on farmworker rights and was worked out with both industry and farmworker advocates at the table. Early in Trump’s presidency, then EPA-head Scott Pruitt announced his intent to revisit several provisions that were recently put in place. This included the requirement that farmworkers be 18 to apply highly toxic pesticides, a clause which allows farmworkers have a “designated representative” obtain information about where and when pesticides were applied, and the AEZ.

As recent as October 2018, and even after 28 Senators wrote EPA to oppose any changes, the agency had intended to revise each of these reforms. But it appears that in late 2018, an agreement was reached as part of a deal cut by lawmakers and the administration that permitted confirmation of Alexandra Dunn to the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in exchange for EPA concessions that would improve pesticide safety measures. Beyond Pesticides wrote, “While advocates are generally pleased with the outcome of the apparent deal, the irony that deals needed to be made for an agency with protection in its name to do its job is not lost.”

As noted at the time of the deal, AEZs were not included in this agreement. Last week’s announcement shows EPA delivered for industry interests within the year.

Currently, 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 and represents a completely unacceptable data point for any industry today in a developed country. It is critical that government agencies work towards enforcing laws agreed to by consensus between industry and advocates, rather than work with industry in its attempts to renege on these deals.

For more information on the plight and daily struggle farmworkers face as they work to put food on the tables of every America, see Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage.

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

Source: EPA Press Release, Politico

(Beyond Pesticides, October 27, 2019) The spraying of toxic herbicides for weed control on campuses exposes students, workers and the general public to chemicals linked to health problems such as cancer and reproductive issues.

Any day now, the University of California system will decide whether or not to continue using glyphosate and other toxic herbicides — including Roundup — on their campuses.

The University of California temporarily banned the use of cancer-causing glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, but the ban doesn’t stop the UC system from using other dangerous herbicides. Student activists are asking UC to commit to transitioning to all organic land care maintenance on all University of California campuses by 2025. This could be an opportunity for the University of California, which prides itself on its commitment to sustainability, to join other universities such as Harvard, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, and others as a national leader in the field.

Tell University of California President Napolitano to issue a full, permanent ban on toxic herbicides and shift the UC land care system to organic!

Message to University of California President

First of all, I would like to thank you for temporarily suspending the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on the University of California campuses and for establishing an Herbicide task force in order to consider long-term approaches to land management.

In anticipation of your Nov. 1 decision I am writing to ask you – for the sake of future generations – to permanently ban toxic herbicides and commit to transitioning to all organic land care maintenance on all University of California campuses by 2025. Organic alternatives exist. This could be an opportunity for the University of California, which prides itself on its commitment to sustainability, to join other universities such as Harvard, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, and others as a national leader in the field.

I understand that you will be stepping down after August 2020. This is an opportunity to leave a legacy in the field of sustainability and stand up for public health and the environment. We can’t wait to celebrate with you.

Thank you,

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2019) Washington State officials have approved an agreement that will prevent oyster growers farming in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor from spraying the neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticide, imidacloprid, on tidal flats to kill native burrowing shrimp. The development comes after years of discussion and dispute among the Washington State Department of Ecology, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association.

Beyond Pesticides has advocated for protection of these relatively pristine estuary areas from toxic pesticides since 2002, when it worked for (ultimately successful) elimination of the use of the highly toxic carbaryl against the shrimp. More recently, it has reported and weighed in frequently on use of imidacloprid and efforts to eliminate its use, as well as on broad contamination of waterways by neonics.

Neonics are well documented to be a huge threat to pollinators and other nontarget organisms, as well as to the environment at large. Imidacloprid is banned by the European Union for outdoor use, and Canada is scheduled to announce details by year’s end on its implementation of a phaseout of neonics. Washington State’s own risk assessment study found that use of imidacloprid on tidelands showed “immediate adverse, unavoidable impacts to juvenile worms, crustaceans, and shellfish to the areas treated . . . and the nearby areas covered by incoming tides. . . . This includes the commercially important Dungeness crab, which is also killed by imidacloprid, as are the native burrowing shrimp.”

The native burrowing shrimp at issue actually comprise two species: the ghost shrimp and the mud shrimp, which live in Pacific tidal flats from California to Alaska — the same habitat used for oyster (and clam) farming. The mud shrimp are on the decline because of a parasitic infection, but ghost shrimp numbers are rising — due in part to alterations in the watershed caused by human activity, such as logging and farming, and to changing climatic conditions. (For more on those changes, and the ecological imbalances that have given rise to this overpopulation of burrowing shrimp, see the “Out of Balance!” section of this Pesticides and You article.)

The shrimp imperil oyster farming because as many as 100 per square meter burrow as much as a meter deep into the sands of the tidal flats and destabilize the seabed. As they feed, they “are essentially mining the sand,” says Oregon State University Scientist John Chapman. The result is that the sands of the flats shift and become muck-like, often causing mature oysters to sink into the muck and get smothered.

The agreement, between the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association (WGHOGA), establishes a working group — comprising state and industry officials and an environmental representative — that would be charged with developing an alternative plan for dealing with the burrowing shrimp. Ideas being considered include deep mechanical harrowing of the tideland sediments; “dye studies” to understand better how any chemicals applied would move through the estuaries; a non-native parasite that feeds on the shrimp’s blood; and experiments with water temperature and salinity. Of course, any of those is likely to have environmental impacts beyond suppression of the shrimp. The settlement also creates resources for monitoring impacts of the burrowing shrimp on commercial oyster (and clam) operations in the two bodies of water.

The agreement was finalized in mid-October by the state Pollution Control Hearings Board. The accord came after years of both efforts by growers to ensure the ability to use the neonic treatment to protect their oyster crops, and advocacy by environmental and community groups against use of imidacloprid on such fragile ecosystems. In response to the agreement, Nathan Donley, a Center for Biological Diversity scientist, said, “Our beautiful coastline is no place to spray a dangerous pesticide that is notorious for contaminating water throughout the country. This important agreement will put an end to the disastrous plan to spray imidacloprid in some of our state’s most important and fragile waters.”

When carbaryl was phased out in 2002 (on a use-reduction schedule of 10% by 2003, 30% by 2004, 30% by 2005, and 100% by 2012), growers began to request permission to use imidacloprid — a neurotoxin that can harm marine life, as well as other species. The compound was not developed for use on or near water bodies, but in 2013, EPA nevertheless approved growers’ requests to use it, and in 2015, Ecology issued a permit to apply imidacloprid to up to 2,000 acres of tidelands in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

Public response was quick and plentiful, and the issue gained unusual notoriety when a number of high-profile Seattle chefs refused to purchase and use oysters contaminated with the neonic. A groundswell of public comment ensued, with thousands contacting state officials with their objections, and in 2018, Ecology temporarily denied growers’ request for a permit allowing annual application of imidacloprid to as many as 500 acres. WGHOGA then appealed that denial. Several nonprofits were involved in the appeal process as intervenors advocating against permitting of imidacloprid: the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, and the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. The National Marine Fisheries Service also opposed use of the compound because of its harms to marine life. With the announced agreement, WGHOGA has agreed to drop its appeal.

This does not mean that the potential for pesticide use against the shrimp has disappeared. The agreement calls for development of alternate means of control — including possible chemical means — and sets out a 2020 timetable for field trials of any alternative insecticides that might be effective. Further, Ecology and WGHOGA are asking the legislature for $650,000 for research efforts. Prior to now, attempts at alternative, non-pesticide controls, including, according to Aquaculture North America, “electric shock (the shrimp burrowed deeper), sprayed concrete (they poked through before it dried), propane in the burrows (it wouldn’t ignite), spicy habanero peppers, high pressure water hoses, even dynamite,” have been futile.

It is not hard to feel some sympathy for the oyster growers; the industry is more than 100 years old and is an important economic and cultural feature of southwest coastal Washington. As the The Astorian (a North Coast Oregon newspaper) reports, “Oyster aquaculture is the biggest-dollar contributor to a state shellfish-farming industry that generates nearly $150 million annually, according to a 2013 study, and in some rural areas of coastal Washington, such as Willapa Bay, is an important source of jobs and tax revenue.” In early 2019, Oregon Public Broadcasting covered the issue through the lens of a longstanding oystering family business, which is facing, at best, an uncertain future, and at worst, the dissolution of a multi-generational family business that employs local workers. Kathleen Nisbet-Moncy, a member of the family who helps run the business, said, “This is our livelihood. It’s really sad to see something you worked so hard to create, to see it taken over by a predator you have no control over.”

As the above-referenced article in Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You, identifies, human activity has had a huge impact on the ecological dynamics of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor estuaries, including loss of native predators, increases in invasive species, and slumping native shellfish production. The article explains, “In the mid-1800s, logging began altering stream morphology and increasing sediment load. Effluent from pulp mills was also dumped into waterways, impairing water quality and contributing to the decline of fish populations like salmon and sturgeon. Floodplains were cleared for agriculture and then later urbanized, leading to a loss of the natural riparian vegetation At the same time, the native Washington oyster, Ostrea lurida, also known as the Olympia oyster, began to decline due to over-harvesting and declining environmental quality. This led oystermen [sic] to import the Pacific oyster from Japan, [which] has thrived in the region. Artificial oyster beds were also created to help boost productivity. Although native to the region, by the early 1920s burrowing shrimp began growing in numbers. Some believe that changes in oystering practices led to the shrimp’s success. The natural layer of shell deposits upon which oysters attach is typically removed during harvest, exposing bare sediment, and allowing the shrimp to burrow. This, coupled with the declining predatory fish populations in the bay, led to an explosion in shrimp populations.”

Aquaculture North America notes, “Things weren’t so bad when the native Olympia oysters prevailed. Olympias clustered together and formed reef structures that float[ed] on the sand. Olympias and the burrowing shrimp existed together. But in the 1920s, Olympias in the Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor oyster beds were overfished to extinction. . . . Growers came in and replaced them with the faster growing Pacific (Japanese) oyster and moved up the tide zone. ‘The native Olympias grew in the low intertidal and subtidal zones,’ explains Brett Dumbauld of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Service. ‘The Japanese oysters are planted higher in the intertidal zone where the shrimp are more abundant.’”

As in so many industries that harvest or extract natural resources, part of the problem may be due to “simple” overexploitation. Intensive cultivation of oysters and other shellfish can harm other forms of floral and faunal marine life in tidal areas, and change the functional dynamics of local ecosystems so that, for example, predator–prey populations are no longer in equilibrium. When chemical “controls” are added to the equation, additional impacts and dysfunction can be catalyzed. There are rarely any quick-and-ready fixes for such ecosystems brought out of functional balance. Long-term solutions nearly always require broad changes in systems and approaches; the tidal habitat that has supported the oyster industry in southwest Washington is no exception.

A holistic approach to the problem could include enhancing and restoring the streams that spill into these bays and harbors, and continuing the ongoing work of restoring native salmon species that have been so decimated over the past two decades. As Beyond Pesticides noted in 2015, “Stream enhancement and restoration improve habitat for fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. These species can help control bountiful populations of burrowing shrimp and aquatic plants. Unfortunately, chemicals have been employed to reduce invasive plant pressures, and the borrowing shrimp. But the use of these chemicals only serves to further threaten the long-term health of the sensitive ecosystem by adversely affecting other non-target species, and potentially creating other out of balance communities. It is important that non-chemical options be explored, such as mechanical removal of invasive plants, and encouraging the revival of native fish and the development of natural oyster beds to suppress shrimp populations.”

Andrew Hawley of the Western Environmental Law Center opined, “Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are unique and fragile places, and we’re happy Ecology listened to the scientists who study these poisons and their effects on ecosystems. Some oyster and clam growers have successfully achieved a balance between the shrimp and their farmed shellfish without use of dangerous pesticides, and that should be model going forward.”

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

Sources: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/agreement-protects-willapa-bay-grays-harbor-spraying-dangerous-pesticide-2019-10-21/, https://www.dailyastorian.com/oyster-growers-agree-to-stop-use-of-insecticide-in-willapa/article_9e8f43e6-f440-11e9-ac96-9f2a125b8551.html, and https://www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com/burrowing-shrimp-taking-over-oyster-leases-1257/

(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2019) Fish and fruit are undoubtedly healthy foods, but modern-day contamination is leading scientists to caution pregnant mothers and young children to stick within current dietary guidelines, or switch to organic, in order to avoid adverse health effects. This new public health message is based on research published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives by scientists from University of Southern California (USC) and several European Countries, finding that overconsumption of fish and fruits leads to higher levels of contamination with toxic persistent chemicals.

“During gestation and early development, the fetus and the child, respectively, are vulnerable to the effects of environmental chemicals, said Lida Chatzi, MD, associate professor of preventive medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC. “A balanced diet during these periods is also critical for optimal nutritional status, but what to eat, and how much, are critical questions.”

Scientists studied a cohort of 1,288 children (between 6 and 11 years) and 818 pregnant mothers from six European countries, who were provided questionnaires to assess their weekly diet. Blood levels of a range of environmental toxicants, including organochlorine compounds like PCB, PFHSs, PFOS, PFOA, pesticides like DDT and DDE, and heavy metals including mercury and arsenic were tested. Likewise, urinary levels for industrial compounds like phthalates and parabens, as well as organophosphate pesticides, were also measured by researchers.

Results found that high self-reported fish and seafood consumption (more than 4 times per week) is associated with greater contamination by several chemicals and heavy metals when compared to those who reportedly ate fish less than 2 times per week. Pregnant mothers in the high consumption group had levels of PCBs 15% higher, mercury 89% and arsenic 487% higher than the low consumption group, with similar results seen for the children tested.

Researchers also found positive associations between eating fruit and levels of organophosphate pesticides in urine for both children and pregnant women. Pregnant women following the recommended serving of fruit – more than two servings per day – have higher pesticide metabolites in their urine than those who have lower fruit consumption. However, children that reportedly eat organic food at least once per week display lower urinary pesticide levels than those who do not eat organic food.

“The choice of organic over conventionally grown fruits contributed to lower exposures of pesticides and phthalates, while retaining the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Dr. Chatzi. “We believe the results carry important public health messages related to the avoidance of excess exposure to environmental contaminants with toxic effects on humans.”

This is far from the first study showing that an organic diet lowers pesticide levels in the body: A 2014 investigation found lower pesticide residue levels after a week-long shift to an organic diet; a 2015 study that found that adults who consumed organic produce had lower urinary levels of organophosphate residues, and another in 2015 that concluded that a switch to an organic diet reduced the body burden of pesticides in children, especially those in low-income urban, and in agricultural families.

Changes in our diet and food choices can be an effective route to avoid excess exposure to environmental chemicals,” said study co-author Eleni Papadopoulou, PhD, a researcher from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. “Understanding sources of dietary exposures to environmental chemicals can inform exposure assessment and identify intervention strategies to reduce exposure.”

While cutting out fish and fruits all together is not recommended, moderation within dietary guidelines and a switch to organic, respectively, appears to be a prudent approach to protect long-term health.

Eating organic is also about more than our own health – buying organic food supports an agricultural approach to reduces farmworker exposure to toxic pesticides, and stops them from poisoning birds, bees and other pollinators, and reduces pollutants in our waterways. For more information on why organic is the right choice for your health and the wider environment, see Beyond Pesticides Eating with a Conscience. Database.

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

Source: USC News Press Release, Environmental Health Perspectives (peer reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2019) Bees provide benefits to farmers that outweigh synthetic inputs, according to a large-scale field study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B earlier this month. Addressing the ongoing question of how much natural ecosystem services are worth, scientists analyzed the costs and benefits of biodiversity versus agrichemicals. Researchers found the value pollinators add to oilseed rape (OSR) production by increasing yields is higher than synthetic chemical inputs, which are costly to farmers and decrease beneficial insect abundance. The title of the study touts the impressive findings, “Bee pollination outperforms pesticides for oilseed crop production and profitability.”

Researchers collected data over six years from 294 OSR fields in France with various levels of soil quality, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and pollinator abundance. They measured pollinator biodiversity with nets and traps at the field sites. Farmers offered data on yield, costs, and profits. Using linear models fitted to the large data set, the study analyzed combined effects of inputs on OSR yield and gross margin. Bee abundance was the only variable that had a positive effect on gross margins.

Pollination is an ecosystem service that benefits one out of three agricultural crops. Studies from Ireland show that insect pollination can increase OSR yield up to 35%, with a value of 2.6 million Euros per year in the whole nation. However, there are few studies that have attempted to analyze the net benefits of pollinators versus chemical inputs in agriculture. The researchers state, “Based on a very large dataset spanning 4 and 6 years, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the synergy and antagonism between agrochemical applications and biodiversity, and their effects on yield and income.”

The region in France where the study was conducted is rich in pollinators, with over 250 native bees. In fields that hosted plenty of these bumbling workers, gross margins were an average of 15% higher than fields with lower pollinator diversity and could increase margins up to 40%. The use of insecticides is related to decreased bee abundance and is harmful to pollinators, but the research noted that productivity lost due to the use of pesticides could be offset with additional synthetic nitrogen. The benefit of using synthetic inputs to increase productivity, however, did not compensate for the cost of the chemicals. Interestingly, while the use of insecticides did reduce the number of agricultural pests, this study found no relationship between decreased pests and effect on yield.

This study offers fodder for the agroecology movement that touts the value of natural systems over synthetic inputs. As the study says, “Based on a large scale field survey, our results therefore support a ‘win-win-win’ balance between crop production, farm income and the environment.” The scientists encourage future studies in various farming areas as the bioregion in France is not necessarily ubiquitous.

As insect populations plummet worldwide, it is more important than ever to recognize the incredible wealth that biodiversity adds to our environment and, perhaps more tangibly, dinner plates. What more, various studies have now shown that toxic pesticides do not increase productivity or add economic benefit to farmers. Organic agriculture, which avoids the use of toxic chemicals, is a booming industry that supports farmers, pollinators, and consumers alike.

To help move the nation and world to organic and regenerative approaches that benefit producers, consumers, and the environment, follow Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of organics; engage with its Action of the Week; check out its Tools for Change; and consider joining the organization as one more way to advocate for the transition away from chemical agriculture. A better, less toxic world is possible.

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

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society B

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2019) Last week, legislators in a New Hampshire House subcommittee passed a bill to restrict the use of pesticides implicated in the decline of pollinator populations. HB 646, dubbed the Saving New Hampshire’s Pollinators Act, will now go to executive session on November 7 for final approval prior to a full vote by the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

If passed through the legislature, New Hampshire would become the fourth state in the nation to curb the use of dangerous pesticides to protect pollinator populations. Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed similar pieces of legislation. As reported by the state newspaper Union Leader, the pesticide industry came out in strong opposition to the legislation. Arguments from industry proponents focused on teaching lawmakers the controversy over the role pesticides play in pollinator declines, rather than the science on the dangers that these chemicals pose. These forces encouraged inaction, pushing the idea that it would be preferable to endanger the future of New Hampshire’s beekeepers, native pollinators, state bird and other songbirds, rather than encourage an already necessary shift toward safer pest management practices.

“For many years the big chemical companies have flooded the market with information about how their products are safe and reliable at fixing any problem concerned with outside weeds and pests,” said Representative Catherine Sofikitis (D-Hillsborough), the prime sponsor of HB 646. “Unfortunately, that is not really true. We are losing our pollinators because of the massive amounts of pesticides that are used. Without these pollinators we will not have food. Banning neonic pesticides is a good first step for New Hampshire.”

Although the bill as passed through subcommittee would allow certified applicators to continue using bee-toxic pesticides, advocates are supporting the bill as a critical first step for pollinator protection in the state. Members of the NH Save Our Pollinators Coalition, who attended the latest subcommittee work session wearing yellow in support of the bill, are pleased with lawmakers’ determination to address pesticide use as a means of reversing the ongoing pollinator crisis. In New Hampshire last year, beekeepers lost a reported 37.4% of their honey bee colonies; the year before, 44.2%. Researchers at UNH have documented dramatic declines in several species of native bees over the last few years.

“There is a multitude of scientific data connecting this class of toxic insecticides and others to detrimental effects on pollinators, wildlife and our environment,” said Diana Carpinone of Non-toxic New Hampshire. “HB 646 is an essential step in protecting New Hampshire’s pollinators.”

The bill is set for a final vote in early November and, if successful, would need to be passed by both the full New Hampshire House and Senate, and then signed by the Governor.

“Honey bees and wild pollinators are vital to pollination,” said Fawn Gaudet of the New Hampshire Save Our Pollinators Coalition. “But without action from state lawmakers, the future of our food system remains in jeopardy.”

New Hampshire residents can contact their elected representative today and urge them to join in support of the Saving NH’s Pollinators Act. If you’re in a state that hasn’t acted to safeguard pollinators from toxic pesticides, reach out to your state lawmakers and urge them to introduce legislation. Contact Beyond Pesticides for information and strategies to move your efforts forward, and see the Bee Protective webpage for more resources. See here for Beyond Pesticides full statement in support of HB 646.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 20, 2019) USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) should remove nonorganic celery powder from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for use in organic food production.

It has been long-established that nitrates and nitrites, used to prevent bacterial growth in processed meats, react with protein to create nitrosamines, which are widely considered to be possible carcinogens. The World Health Organization considers processed meat “a known carcinogen.”

Tell NOSB to remove carcinogenic nonorganic celery powder from organic processed meat.

For too long the meat industry, including organic processors, have engaged in a form of subterfuge by being able, and in fact required, to label meat preserved with celery powder as “no nitrates or no nitrites added” or “uncured.”

The use of conventional celery powder, with amped up applications of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, creates the same functional and biological impacts as synthetic nitrates/nitrates as a meat preservative.

The federal laws governing organics are clear. To legally use a synthetic compound, or a natural or agricultural material that is not certified organic, in the production of certified organic product, it must appear on the list of approved substances. And to do so, proposed materials must not damage the environment or human health, must be essential to the production of a given food or crop, and must be compatible with organic philosophy.

There is little doubt that the continuance of celery powder on the National List violates the trust of consumers who seek out organic food as a safe haven from what is conventionally offered in the supermarket and all too often contains dangerous and risky ingredients.

Tell NOSB to remove carcinogenic nonorganic celery powder from organic processed meat.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 18, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a directive in September, under Administrator Andrew Wheeler, that changes its pesticide approval process and aims to reduce (mammalian) animal testing significantly by 2035. The agency also announced awards totaling $4.25 million to four universities for development of alternative methods to evaluate chemicals, including pesticides. The move will likely be seen both as an advancement of animal rights, and as a setback for the kinds of testing that can have important implications for human health. Resolution of this issue could be found in a shift away from chemical agriculture and to organic and regenerative practices, which eschew toxic chemicals and synthetic fertilizers, and obviate need for them.

The directive affects not only the agency’s own research, but also, as the memo says, EPA will “come as close as possible to excluding from its approval process any reliance on mammal studies conducted after January 1, 2035, including those performed by third parties.” The schools receiving EPA funds to work on alternative testing are Johns Hopkins University, Vanderbilt University and Vanderbilt’s Medical Center, Oregon State University, and the University of California-Riverside.

President of the International Science Consortium for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Amy Clippinger, PhD commented, “PETA is celebrating the EPA’s decision to protect animals certainly, but also humans and the environment, by switching from cruel and scientifically flawed animal tests in favor of modern, non-animal testing methods.” Those who oppose animal testing comprise some unusual bedfellows: animal rights advocates, such as PETA and the Human Society of the U.S.; the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; small-government activists; and the chemical industry.

Those bedfellows are no doubt pleased with the announcement because, enacted, it would largely eliminate what they regard as inhumane treatment of subject animals. They further argue that animal testing is actually a poor predictor of human health impacts for a variety of reasons, including:
• reactions to chemicals vary enormously from species to species

• lab animals are typically psychologically stressed, which can jeopardize the validity of results
• there are other useful ways to test impacts of chemicals exposure, such as through in vitro (conducted in a controlled laboratory setting) and in silico (conducted by computer modeling) experiments
• many animal experiments are fundamentally flawed

Supporters of animal testing for chemicals used in pesticide products maintain that:

• animals provide models of biology and pathology similar enough to those of humans to yield results salient to human health
• there is no adequate alternative to testing on living, whole-body systems
• animal research is highly regulated so as to protect animals from mistreatment
• animals often are better research subjects (than humans, even were it ethical to use people) because of their shorter life cycles
• animals must be used in cases in which ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects
• alternative methodologies are not meet to the toxicological challenges of the complex dynamics inherent in cancer or reproductive toxicology

Lena Smirnova, PhD of Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing notes that animal — and especially rodent — physiology differs in many ways from that of humans, and that, e.g., in one research study comparing human and animal drug toxicities, rodent models correctly predicted human toxicity in only 43% of the cases. She adds, “If you look at something very complex, like reproductive toxicity or developmental toxicity or carcinogenicity, rats predict mice by around 60%. So why would we expect that it would be better in humans?” Her laboratory at Johns Hopkins is working on microphysiological systems dubbed “mini brains” to observe neurotoxic effects, currently for chlorpyrifos and rotenone.

The legitimacy of using of animal subjects in experiments is an ongoing debate in the scientific community. But the EPA announcement may be understood in some quarters as an agency end-run around EPA’s responsibility “to protect human health and the environment.” Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who is a former coal industry lobbyist, has led the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign to roll back critical environmental regulations.

In this effort, Mr. Wheeler has charged senior EPA leadership with developing a plan that “will identify tangible steps to ensure that the agency’s regulatory, compliance and enforcement activities, including chemical and pesticide approvals and agency research, remain fully protective of human health and the environment while pursing these reduction goals.” This is a laudable goal whose achievement is, unfortunately, belied by the already-inadequate review of pesticides that occurs under EPA auspices.

An article co-written for Environmental Health News by Laura Vandenberg, PhD, Associate Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass Amherst) School of Public Health and Health Sciences, and Thomas Zoeller, PhD, Professor of Biology at UMass Amherst, says squarely: “Chemical testing by the EPA and other regulatory agencies must be improved” because it is currently inadequate.

Drs. Vandenberg and Zoeller maintain that current testing for chemical safety (which would include pesticides review) does not adequately protect human health. They cite: the record levels of chronic diseases, both in the U.S. and elsewhere; the strong links between exposure to environmental chemicals, and developmental disorders and endocrine disruption; and research evidence showing that chemicals that are approved by EPA are contributing to chronic disease development. Although open to new technologies to reduce use of animal testing, the scientists say that “unless the Agency [EPA] changes the way it evaluates the effects of chemicals on health, a shift away from animal testing will reduce an already inadequate protection for human health.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has written, “This is yet another Trump Administration attack on scientific information, this time targeting the laboratory animal tests that show whether and how chemicals may harm people, wildlife, and ecosystems. Instead, the Trump EPA is pushing the use of non-animal alternative methods that are mostly still in development, and cannot capture the complexity of many chemical exposure risks like infertility and cancer.”

NRDC welcomes the development of non-animal test methods that could help identify potential toxicity and adverse effects on humans, wildlife, and the environment. Organization scientists say that “use of these tests — like any scientific or other toxicity information — can be harmful if used to explain away adverse effects (that is, incorrectly identifying a toxic chemical as harmless). In cases where this happens, harmful chemicals can get into our air, water, cosmetics and personal care products, household items, food and food packaging, etc., threatening the health of humans, pets and wildlife. Thus, if used to permit chemicals onto the market, the regulatory system must use the test information in a health-protective and precautionary manner. That is not the case with the Trump EPA, and it isn’t clear when EPA, the FDA or other regulatory agencies will adopt a simple health-protective approach, rather than favoring the chemical industry that it is supposed to regulate.”

Part of critics’ concern is that the move away from animal testing will fast-track approval of pesticide and other chemical products into the marketplace with inadequate or flawed toxicity testing. Despite some advances in non-animal acute toxicity testing, the arena of chronic and systemic health impacts is more challenging territory for such protocols. Such impacts tend to be more complex disorders — such as reproductive, oncological, and endocrine diseases — whose chemical-exposure catalysts or causes some scientists say are more accurately evaluated via whole-animal testing. In addition, the evaluation of exposure effects and developmental windows in children cannot be evaluated, e.g., in a petri dish. NRDC and other critics say that imposing an artificial deadline, when in vitro and in silico approaches are still nascent, is ill advised, and that funding and animal testing are important to the mission of informing and protecting the public.

NRDC senior scientist Jennifer Sass, PhD, critiqued EPA’s announcement, saying that “EPA is phasing out the tools that lay the groundwork for protecting the public from dangers like formaldehyde and chlorpyrifos, a pesticide used on crops, animals and buildings. The EPA’s plan is a ‘gift’ to the chemical industry that will result in a ‘rigged system that gives the green light to harmful chemicals. Our concern is not with the alternative tests themselves. Our concern is with how EPA is interpreting the data from them. If the tests themselves are not indicating a toxic effect, then EPA is presuming there is no toxic effect.’” Dr. Sass argues that animal testing works to protect public health, and says that the organization endorses a more-precautionary approach to the use of chemicals that would proscribe approval of any that show evidence of harm in animals.

Drs. Vandenberg and Zoeller point out that EPA could alter its approach to regulating chemicals in order to use these emerging non-animal technologies sensibly: “Instead of requiring overt evidence that a chemical causes harm in animals or people, they could use the results from cell-based tests to identify chemicals that interact with biological systems. Because there would be no information about how these cell-based tests quantitatively relate to humans, they would have to move to a ‘hazard-based’ approach.”

The Precautionary Principle, as set out in 1998, says: “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.”

It is staggering to recognize the reality that our nation and world are saturated with human-made chemicals — 80,000 on the market in the U.S. alone, and most synthesized only in the past 50 years. The majority of those compounds have not been evaluated for effects other than acute toxicity, and 95% have not been reviewed for potential impacts on children. Given these circumstances, Beyond Pesticides advocates for a Precautionary approach to permitting of all pesticides, and for the transition to a world free of them. Join us: https://beyondpesticides.org/join/sign-me-up.

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

Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennysplitter/2019/10/14/the-epa-is-changing-how-it-tests-agricultural-pesticides/#785bd7d82c14 and https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/epa-attack-science-targets-critical-animal-tests

(Beyond Pesticides, October 17, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is downplaying the connection between exposure to the herbicide paraquat and the development of Parkinson’s disease, per registration review documents released by the agency this week. Although unsurprising given the current administration’s track record of defending some of the most heinous chemicals still on the market, the review nonetheless marks a low point for scientific integrity within EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, according to advocates. Health and environmental advocates have already discounted EPA’s industry-biased review, and are instead pushing hard for Congressional action – namely HR 3817, the Protect Against Paraquat Act, introduced by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).

Under federal law, pesticides are required to undergo reevaluation every 15 years. Paraquat is a potent restricted use herbicide, not available to be applied by residential users, but permitted for use on multiple agriculture crops. Over the last decade, independent peer-reviewed scientific studies have repeatedly found strong associations between paraquat to the development of Parkinson’s disease. Many of these studies have been covered in Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News or are recorded in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

In response to this growing body of literature, EPA conducted an epidemiological evaluation of published studies on the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s. But, in a similar manner to how the agency conducted its epidemiological evaluation of pyrethroids, EPA made broad statements dismissing scientific evidence as insufficient.

While the chemical has been banned in the European Union since 2007, as a 2016 New York Times exposé found, millions of pounds are still being imported into the U.S. from other countries, sprayed on nearly 15 million acres of U.S. cropland. The Chinese government began a phase-out of the chemical in 2013, and Brazil is set to eliminate this chemical.

“America stands alone in functioning as a dumping ground for paraquat, a toxic herbicide other countries may produce, but refuse to expose their residents to,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director for Beyond Pesticides.

On the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s, “The data is overwhelming” said Samuel M. Goldman, MD, an epidemiologist in the San Francisco Veterans Affairs health system to the New York Times. “I’m not a farmer, I don’t need to kill weeds, but I have to believe there are less dangerous options out there.”

An EPA environmental review conducted as part of the reregistration process found evidence of significant reproductive harm to small mammals, and determined that songbirds may be exposed to levels well beyond lethal concentrations known to cause death. Threats to mammals and songbirds are particularly concerning in light of significant declines in these animal groups.

As EPA continues to damage public trust in its scientific review process, it is up to everyday citizens and residents of the US to correct course and push for health protective laws. Beyond Pesticides and other organizations stand ready to assist farming communities in transforming pest management by eliminating a reliance on toxic pesticides like paraquat and adopting organic practices.

Act to get paraquat out of America’s food system by encouraging your Congressional representative to cosponsor the Protect Against Paraquat Act. The legislation is supported by the Unified Parkinson’s Advocacy Council – a group led by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research – and supported by other health and environmental groups.

Source: EPA Paraquat Dichoride Registration Review, Center for Biological Diversity

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 16, 2019) Organic poultry is far less likely than conventionally raised meats to contain antibiotic-resistant Salmonella, according to research presented last week at a conference for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. With bacterial resistance to common antibiotics on the rise, in large part due to misuse in agriculture, consumers are looking for the best choice to feed themselves and their families. While researchers did find organic poultry production to result in fewer instances of antibiotic resistance, there are still improvements that must be made in organic to further reduce and ultimately eliminate the threat of bacterial resistance and align organic standards with consumer expectations.

“Although contamination of retail poultry was found in both conventionally raised and antibiotic-free samples, our results show that Salmonella in poultry produced without antibiotics – based on packaging claims – were significantly less resistant to antibiotics compared with poultry raised using conventional methods,” said Xin Yin, MPH, lead author of the study and DrPH candidate at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. “Consumers should read production labels and make informed choices based on the evidence about the risk of poultry contamination with drug-resistant Salmonella.”

For the study, researchers analyzed samples conducted on randomly purchased turkey and chicken in the state of Pennsylvania between 2008-2017. Of the 2,733 conventional samples tested, roughly 10%, 280, of those samples were contaminated with Salmonella compared to 5.3%, 40, of the 748 organic samples tested. Within these numbers, over half, (55%), 154 of the 280 conventional Salmonella detects, were resistant to three or more antibiotics. The same was true for only 11 of the 40 organic samples (28%) that tested positive for the bacteria. Nearly 25% of conventional Salmonella samples displayed some level of resistance to the last resort antibiotic ceftriaxone. Three of the 40 organic samples contained this level of resistance.

“These findings underscore how important it is to use antibiotics judiciously, not only in human medicine but in food-producing animals,” said Nkuchia M. M’ikanatha, DrPH, MPH, an author on both studies and an epidemiologist with the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. “We found a significant percentage of Salmonella bacteria in meat that causes infection in humans were resistant to three or more antibiotics, meaning treatments may not work for some patients who really need them.”

Antibiotics are used in animal agriculture under the guise of treating infections but are often employed within a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) that stresses animals. In this context, antibiotics are used to lower environmental stressors and allow animals to put on weight. Near the time of this report’s presentation, Beyond Pesticides reported on another study that raised a red flag on global antibiotic resistance, noting problems in chicken production and certain hotspots like China, Pakistan, Turkey, Brazil, Egypt, Vietnam, Mexico, and South Africa.

While the data point to organic being a safer choice, it is evident there is a need to strengthen organic standards to further reduce and eliminate bacterial contamination. Beyond Pesticides has encouraged organic consumers to get active in the standard setting process and urge the board to finalize organic animal welfare rules. Despite publishing a final rule, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has refused to implement this important law.

Many poultry producers are receiving certified organic status while operating under conditions similar to factory farms. By setting minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements and defining “outdoors,” the rule being championed by consumer advocates would make it more difficult for factory egg and poultry farms to be certified organic.

Implementation of this rule is critical for human and environmental health, as well as the wallets of certified organic farmers. Otherwise, real organic farmers following the letter, spirit and intent of organic practices will have the reputation of their their truly safer products sullied by those concerned only with gaining a price premium for their meat.

Take action to fight back against organic CAFOs and other practices that damage organic integrity by visiting Beyond Pesticides Keeping Organic Strong webpage. Although the comment period is closed, you can still follow along with the issues, or register to speak in person at the upcoming National Organic Standards Board meeting taking place in Pittsburgh, PA next week, October 23-25^th.

Source: Infectious Disease Society of America

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 15, 2019) EPA is requesting comment on its proposal to require data that will help it determine synergistic effects of some pesticides. EPA has received on a pressure on a number of fronts, including a report by the Center for Biological Diversity, a report by its own Inspector General, a letter from 35 Congressional Representatives, and research pointing to the unavoidability of synergistic effects—the chemical combinations that cause greater effects when mixed together than the sum of the individual chemical effects. Despite all of the evidence that synergism is the rule rather than the exception, EPA’s consideration focuses on a narrow range of cases in which pesticide product patents make claims of synergy.

Tell EPA to always investigate synergy and to determine need for pesticides.

One such product is Dow’s Enlist Duo, which combines glyphosate and 2,4-D in an attempt to overcome weed resistance. The focus on products and tank mixes where synergism is a selling point brings to light the fact that as a rule, EPA does not request efficacy data in registering pesticides not intended to protect public health. Thus, although required by law to weigh pesticide risks and benefits, EPA rarely has data to make that determination.

Comment at Regulations.gov. Make the following points:

Pesticides occur in mixtures in air, soil, water, and agricultural products. The impacts of mixtures must be considered in all registration decisions.

• The decision that a pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects considering all the risks and benefits requires EPA to determine whether a pesticide is effective. Therefore, efficacy data should be required for all pesticides.
• Synergistic effects of pesticides may involve interactions with pharmaceutical chemicals and naturally-occurring processes in humans and other organisms.
• Synergistic effects may be mediated in the environment. For example, an herbicide may destroy habitat for an animal that is also poisoned by an insecticide.
• EPA must investigate possible synergistic effects of all pesticides.

Written comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov until 11:59 pm ET October 24, 2019. 

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 11, 2019) The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public comment on a document that describes an “interim process” being used to assess potential synergistic effects of admixtures of pesticide active ingredients on non-target organisms. This interim risk assessment process was catalyzed in part by a 2015 lawsuit brought by a group of non-governmental organizations; that suit cited EPA’s failure to evaluate appropriately the impacts of a new herbicide, Enlist Duo, on non-target species, including some endangered species. EPA’s inattention to synergistic impacts on non-target species has long been a deficiency of EPA’s pesticide review and regulation and a focus for Beyond Pesticides’ work to factor in uncertainties, or unknowns, in registering pesticides under a precautionary approach. Although EPA recognizes that pesticide exposures occur in combinations, it evaluates a very limited number of such interactions.

Manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, Enlist Duo combines glyphosate and 2,4-D. Increasingly, manufacturers create and market such “twofer” products as responses to the burgeoning issue of plant resistance to individual pesticides. As insects, fungi, weeds, or other “pests” inevitably develop resistance to pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, or insecticide compounds, the efficacy of the chemical treatment obviously plummets. Manufacturer response is often either to find a new chemical, or to “double down” with combined-ingredient products that may be effective until the next wave of resistance develops.

EPA acknowledged, during that 2015 litigation, which challenged EPA registration of Enlist Duo, that some patent applications for registered pesticide products claim that they provide so-called “synergistic” control of target species. The patent assertions about greater than additive (GTA) effects have “raised questions and concerns about the EPA’s current process for evaluating ecological risks of pesticide mixtures because some target pests are also members of taxonomic groups of nontarget organisms that EPA assesses.” Also in 2015, EPA asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to “vacate its [2014] registration decision and remand the application for Enlist Duo for further study of these effects and any measures that might be needed to mitigate the risk to non-target organisms.” The court denied EPA’s request.

Of EPA’s call for public comment, the National Law Review notes that, “EPA typically registers pesticide products that are not intended to protect public health without any independent evaluation of efficacy data. Nevertheless, in general EPA may choose to evaluate pesticidal efficacy data; such circumstances in the past often involved cases where EPA was required to consider whether pesticide benefits are sufficient to outweigh identified risks. In the Enlist [Duo] case, EPA determined that it should do so where potential synergy in pesticidal efficacy is pertinent to evaluating ecological effects on non-target species. What EPA must decide now is how often efficacy data that has been deemed adequate by the Patent and Trademark Office to support a patent for a new pesticide mixture will have any material significance in the context of ecological risk assessment. . . . EPA has decided it is prudent to afford all stakeholders an opportunity to comment on whether EPA has been asking the right questions.”

Some background: an application for registration of a pesticide product must meet standards in order to be approved. EPA describes those: “Applicants are responsible for citing or generating all data necessary to meet data requirements specified by FIFRA [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the federal law that created the basic system of pesticide regulation]. The standard for determining whether an application should be granted includes a finding that: (1) a product’s composition warrants the proposed claims for it; (2) the product’s labeling and other material required to be submitted complies with FIFRA; (3) the product will perform its intended function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and (4) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects” as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.”

For new chemicals in EPA’s pesticide registration process — about which EPA has specific concerns about the potential for GTA effects — the OPP protocol proposes to “request” that registrants: (1) review data from existent patent applications that assert GTA effects from active ingredient interactions; (2) compare data from those applications to EPA ecological risk assessment relevancy criteria; (3) report effects testing data from relevant patents; and (4) “analyze the data to determine if observations of greater than additive effects in mixtures are statistically significant in the context of test variability.” EPA would then review all submitted information to decide whether it should be utilized in ecological risk assessment. Importantly, OPP would rely here on: (1) registrant-submitted data rather than independently secured data, and (2) registrants’ compliance with the “requests.” The Federal Register notice of the protocol document does at least indicate that EPA is “uncertain concerning the utility for risk assessment of the information used by manufacturers to support synergistic effects claims in pesticide patents.”

“Synergy” in the pesticide context has two aspects: one is what these patent applications claim, which is some “greater than the sum of its parts” or “greater than additive” impact on, e.g., weed suppression, by these herbicides with multiple active ingredients. The other aspect is the largely unexamined — by regulators — universe of threats that exposure to multiple pesticide ingredients poses to the environment and to nontarget plant and animal species.

The OPP document, titled Process for Receiving and Evaluating Data Supporting Assertions of Greater Than Additive (GTA) Effects in Mixtures of Pesticide Active Ingredients and Associated Guidance for Registrants, sets out the process that OPP’s Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Division is using in its attempts to evaluate synergistic risks. However, that process reviews only those admixtures whose makers assert that their efficacy on the target weed or pest is synergistic. OPP’s narrow focus ignores all the other potential synergistic impacts — effects that may arise when organisms, whether floral or faunal, are exposed to multiple active pesticide ingredients. Such “mixing” may happen during industry formulation of a product, in an applicator’s garage or barn, or at the organismic point of exposure via air, water, soil, and/or food.

OPP’s protocol is typical of EPA’s failure to consider risks related to all those other vectors for exposure to multiple pesticides. In a 2016 letter to EPA, Beyond Pesticides noted, for example, that although EPA had concluded that “the combination of 2,4-D choline and glyphosate in Enlist Duo does not show any increased toxicity to plants,” it was unclear that EPA had evaluated synergistic risks to other, non-plant organisms (including humans), who would be exposed to this chemical mixture. Beyond Pesticides wrote, “It does not appear that assessments, based on exposure to both glyphosate and 2,4-D choline, have been conducted to properly assess whether synergistic effects can occur in non-plant organisms.” Beyond Pesticides has advocated, in the face of EPA’s inattention synergistic impacts, that the EPA Office of the Inspector General — tasked with conducting “audits and investigations of EPA to promote economy and efficiency, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse” — investigate this critical failure.

Beyond Pesticides advocates robustly for a regulatory approach to pesticides that prohibits high-risk chemical practices, and rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations filled with uncertainty. Rather, the federal regulatory framework should focus on safer, effective alternatives, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the vast majority of toxic chemicals.

Beyond Pesticides encourages public comment on the OPP risk assessment protocol. Such commentary could include the following points:

• Impacts of pesticides mixtures, which occur in in air, soil, water, and agricultural products, should be considered in all EPA registration decisions.
• Any decision that a pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects (considering all the risks and benefits) requires EPA to determine whether a pesticide is effective. Thus, efficacy data should be required for all pesticides.
• Synergistic effects of pesticides may involve interactions with pharmaceuticals or naturally occurring biochemicals and processes in humans and other organisms.
• Synergistic effects may be mediated in the environment; for example, an herbicide may destroy habitat for an animal that is also being poisoned by an insecticide.
• EPA should investigate potential synergistic impacts of all pesticides.

Public comments on the proposed EPA policy can be contributed here until October 24 at 11:59pm EST. Please consider incorporating the bullet points above in your comments to EPA.

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

Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-seeks-comment-its-risk-assessment-methodology-evaluating-potential-synergistic

(Beyond Pesticides, October 10, 2019) Mysterious vaping illnesses across the country could be related to pesticide exposure, among other contaminants in black-market marijuana vaping products. To date, there have been 23 deaths from vaping-related illness, and about 1,100 cases of the illness nationwide. Yesterday, a 17-year-old boy from the Bronx became the youngest person to pass away from the illness. Most patients have reported that they used vape cartridges with THC. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

NBC News recently commissioned laboratory tests of 18 THC cartridges – three from a legal Californian dispensary and 15 from unlicensed dealers. Cartridges from legal dispensary had no heavy metals, pesticides, or residual solvents. 10 out of the 10 of the black-market products tested were positive for pesticides. CannaSafe, the laboratory, reported that some of the unregulated products contained the fungicide myclobutanil. Heating myclobutanil can cause it to break down into harmful products, including hydrogen cyanide – a known potent carcinogen. Other pesticides detected included mixtures of the following pesticide or pesticide formula ingredient: fipronil, piperonyl butoxide, permethrin, malathion, and others (see full test results here).

Melodi Pirzada, M.D., a pediatric pulmonologist at NYU Winthrop Hospital, called the finding of myclobutanil “very disturbing,” and mentioned that it would “cause a very toxic effect on the lungs.” Dr. Pirzada is alarmed at the results showing that 13/15 of the black-market samples contained vitamin E, a solvent which damages the lungs when inhaled.

The nicotine vaping industry is under fire as the illnesses impact young individuals that may be drawn in by fruity flavors such as “Candy Cane” and “Fruity Loops.” New York City filed a federal lawsuit against websites that sell these products to New Yorkers who are under 21, the legal age limit for tobacco products in New York. The American Vaping Association, meanwhile, maintains that the outbreak is linked to THC oils and black-market products.

Last December, Colorado recalled two legal marijuana products due to dangerous pesticide residues, raising questions on safety and regulations in cannabis production even in the state-sanctioned market. Beyond Pesticides insists that any and all pesticide use on cannabis is illegal. Advocates are asking states to establish laws and/or regulations that mandate an organic systems approach to cannabis production.

As stated in Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week, “Pesticides have not been registered for use in cannabis production, yet they are being widely used under state-adopted enforcement levels that imply safety, but not subject to any standard of review that meets pesticide registration standards.” As seen in the case of myclobutanil, heating toxic chemicals and inhaling them through the sensitive exposure route of the lungs is dangerous – not only due to the active ingredient but also the breakdown components.

Congress should intervene on the cannabis issue to protect public health and safety. Ask them to: (1) Hold oversight hearings to document state violations of federal pesticide law by allowing the pesticide use in cannabis production and processing, despite not being registered for this use by EPA. (2) Request an OIG and Government Accountability investigation to assist in clarifying EPA and state enforcement responsibility to ensure compliance with pesticide product labels.

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

Source: NBC News

(Beyond Pesticides, October 9, 2019) Pesticide industry propaganda promoting the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides took another hit last month, as a study published by an international team of researchers found the chemical had the potential to induce breast cancer when combined with other risk factors. The study, Glyphosate Primes Mammary Cells for Tumorigenesis by Reprogramming the Epigenome in a TET3-Dependent Manner, led by scientists from Indiana’s Purdue University and the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)/Institut de Cancérologie de L’Ouest (ICO) in Nantes, France, provides an important new lens through which to view pesticide-induced cancer development.

“This is a major result and nobody has ever shown this before,” says Sophie Lelièvre, PhD, a professor of cancer pharmacology in Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine and co-leader of IBCN. “Showing that glyphosate can trigger tumor growth, when combined with another frequently observed risk, is an important missing link when it comes to determining what causes cancer.”

To make their determination, scientists exposed human breast cells low levels of glyphosate every three to four days over the course of 21 days. A control group was also dosed with a known cancer-promoting peptide. Glyphosate caused the same changes to exposed cells as the cancer-promoting peptide, indicating that glyphosate promotes DNA hypomethylation, a process denoted by the loss of methyl groups to a certain nucleotide. DNA methyl groups control the way DNA is expressed, and there has long been concern regarding the way pesticides adversely interfere with gene expression in the lead up to diseases like cancer.

To test whether DNA hypomethylation in exposed cells would in fact lead to cancer, researchers implanted the breast cells into mice. While cells exposed to the cancer-promoting peptide developed cancer in all implanted mice, none of those exposed to glyphosate developed into cancer.  However, drawing upon scientific hypotheses on the role of multiple stressors in cancer development, scientists created a “two factor hit” whereby molecules known to cause oxidative stress were added to glyphosate exposed cells that were subsequently implanted into mice.  These molecules were linked to stress caused by factors such as aging, diet, alcohol consumption, or smoking. Mice exposed to this “two factor hit” developed cancer 50% of the time.

“What was particularly alarming about the tumor growth was that it wasn’t the usual type of breast cancer we see in older women,” Dr. Lelièvre said. “It was the more aggressive form found in younger women, also known as luminal B cancer.”

Importantly, through this research scientists were able to determine the epigenetic pathway through which glyphosate and other stressors induced breast cancer development. The results suggest additional investigation into methyl groups that control certain genes as an avenue for mitigating breast cancer risk.

“There has been a heavy focus on research for both treatment and detection, but prevention just isn’t as prevalent,” Dr. Lelièvre said. “If we can find a way to mitigate the risks, we can have hope for fewer cases.”

The study underlines the importance of preventing similar “two-factor hits” in the real world. While many will dismiss concerns over exposure to various toxic substances by saying “everything causes cancer” the study shows that, in fact, it is very likely the combination of multiple exposures that will ultimately result in cancer. In that way, any method that reduces exposure to carcinogenic agents in our environment is a benefit for health.

“There is a huge gap in the research that is targeted at understanding why cancer develops,” Dr. Lelièvre said. “This discovery is novel, primarily because until now, there hasn’t been any scientific evidence to show that a second factor when associated with common pollutants would be sufficient for cancer to develop.”

Pesticides represent a low hanging fruit for reducing carcinogenic risks. Their use, in the vast majority of cases, is simply not necessary given the availability of alternative products and practices. To avoid exposure to carcinogenic herbicides like glyphosate, choose organic whenever possible.

Beyond Pesticides continues to advocate against the use of glyphosate and other carcinogenic pesticides in farming, landscaping, and other outdoor areas. Join this effort by urging your local government to eliminate glyphosate use and adopt organic land management practices. Follow the links below based on your region to send a letter to your local leaders:

WEST

• Mountain West: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming
• Pacific West: Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington

MIDWEST

• East North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin
• West North Central: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota

SOUTH

• South Atlantic: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, District of Columbia, and West Virginia
• East South Central: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee
• West South Central: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas

NORTH EAST

• North East: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania

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

Source: Purdue University press release, Frontiers in Genetics (peer-reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 8, 2019) As medicinal and recreational marijuana continue to be legalized in a growing number of states, concerns about the safety of the burgeoning industry—how the substance is grown, harvested, processed, distributed, sold, and used—have emerged. Pesticides have not been registered for use in cannabis production, yet they are being widely used under state-adopted enforcement levels that imply safety, but not subject to any standard of review that meets pesticide registration standards.

Pesticide contamination of medical cannabis is important not only because it introduces toxic chemicals into a medicine, but also because medical cannabis can interfere with the body’s ability to detoxify those pesticides. Cannabinoids have been shown to inhibit the activity of enzymes that help detoxify chemicals, which can make pesticides more toxic.

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to hold oversight hearings and request investigations into EPA and state responsibilities to prevent misuse of pesticides on cannabis.

New Frontier Data CEO Giadha Aguirre de Carcer, pointing to California residue testing results, cites a threat to the medicinal cannabis market. She notes that 84% of 2016 product batches tested were found to harbor pesticide residue; and that in the recent California round of assays 20% failed established state standards due to contamination from pesticides, bacteria, or processing chemicals, and in some cases, inaccurate labeling.

Colorado, Washington, and Oregon have all taken steps to list “allowable” pesticides for marijuana cultivation. However, by law, states cannot label pesticides that do not have a federal pesticide registration—which cannot be accomplished because of marijuana’s illegal federal status. California began in June 2018 to set out parameters for testing of cannabis; at this juncture, all cannabis for medical and recreational use must be tested for 66 different proscribed pesticides, as well as for other contaminants, such as E. coli, feces, mold, insect and rodent parts, mycotoxins, terpenoids, and heavy metals. The regulatory matrix in the states is dynamic, and events such as Colorado’s recalls and California’s fraudulent lab reporting may spur further adjustments.

Pesticide use on marijuana is illegal. Because marijuana is not a legal agricultural crop under relevant federal law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and hemp has only recently been legalized, EPA has not evaluated the safety of any pesticide on marijuana plants. EPA has established no allowances for pesticide use in cannabis production, and no tolerances, nor any exemptions from tolerances, for pesticide residues on cannabis. In the absence of federal regulations governing pesticides in cannabis production, the use of pesticides not registered by EPA is illegal. Several states have codified this understanding by adopting policies that prohibit all federally registered pesticides. Other states have taken the position that state policy is unnecessary, since EPA has not registered any pesticides for cannabis production and registered pesticide use is illegal. A review of state laws conducted by Beyond Pesticides finds a patchwork of regulations with varying degrees of protection for consumers and the environment.

Because of the absence of thorough federal testing of potential effects of the use of pesticides on cannabis for consumers, producers, and the environment, states do not have the authority to permit pesticide use in cannabis production and processing. State may, however, provide clear rules for sustainable production practices that will protect public health and the environment.

The lack of federal review and registration of pesticides used in cannabis production effectively requires the industry to embrace only those inputs exempt from federal registration and adopt true organic soil management practices.

Beyond Pesticides has recommended that states establish laws and/or regulations that mandate an organic systems approach to cannabis production. A requirement, for example, that growers and processors follow the dictates of national organic soil management standards would be prudent, precautionary, and a positive trajectory for the cannabis industry.

Congress should intervene to protect public health and safety. Ask them to:

• Hold oversight hearings to document state violations of federal pesticide law by allowing the pesticide use in cannabis production and processing, despite not being registered for this use by EPA.
• Request an OIG and Government Accountability investigation to assist in clarifying EPA and state enforcement responsibility to ensure compliance with pesticide product labels.

Letter to Congress

Please intervene to protect public health and safety from misuse of pesticides on cannabis. As medicinal and recreational marijuana continue to be legalized in a growing number of states, concerns about the safety of the burgeoning industry—how the substance is grown, harvested, processed, distributed, sold, and used—have emerged. Pesticides have not been registered for use in cannabis production, yet they are being widely used under state-adopted enforcement levels that imply safety, but not subject to any standard of review that meets pesticide registration standards.

Pesticide contamination of medical cannabis is important not only because it introduces toxic chemicals into a medicine, but also because medical cannabis can interfere with the body’s ability to detoxify those pesticides. Cannabinoids have been shown to inhibit the activity of enzymes that help detoxify chemicals, which can make pesticides more toxic.

Pesticide use on marijuana is illegal. Because marijuana is not a legal agricultural crop under relevant federal law (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and hemp has only recently been legalized, EPA has not evaluated the safety of any pesticide on marijuana plants. EPA has established no allowances for pesticide use in cannabis production, and no tolerances, nor any exemptions from tolerances, for pesticide residues on cannabis. In the absence of federal regulations governing pesticides in cannabis production, the use of pesticides not registered by EPA is illegal. Several states have codified this understanding by adopting policies that prohibit all federally registered pesticides. Other states have taken the position that state policy is unnecessary, since EPA has not registered any pesticides for cannabis production and registered pesticide use is illegal. A review of state laws conducted by Beyond Pesticides finds a patchwork of regulations with varying degrees of protection for consumers and the environment.

Because of the absence of thorough federal testing of potential effects of the use of pesticides on cannabis for consumers, producers, and the environment, states do not have the authority to permit pesticide use in cannabis production and processing. State may, however, provide clear rules for sustainable production practices that will protect public health and the environment.

The lack of federal review and registration of pesticides used in cannabis production effectively requires the industry to embrace only those inputs exempt from federal registration and adopt true organic soil management practices.

States should establish laws and/or regulations that mandate an organic systems approach to cannabis production. A requirement, for example, that growers and processors follow the dictates of national organic soil management standards would be prudent, precautionary, and a positive trajectory for the cannabis industry.

Please protect public health and safety by:

• Holding oversight hearings to document state violations of federal pesticide law by allowing the pesticide use in cannabis production and processing, despite not being registered for this use by EPA.
• Requesting an OIG and Government Accountability investigation to assist in clarifying EPA and state enforcement responsibility to ensure compliance with pesticide product labels.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 7, 2019) Central American agricultural workers, exposed in the 1970s and early 1980s to a highly toxic pesticide, subsequently began suing manufacturers in the mid-1980s, with mixed success. Now, some of those workers have stepped up their game: they have brought suit against three big agrochemical industries in France to try to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in damages awarded to them by Nicaraguan courts, but never paid. As reported by The New York Times, “the case could set a legal precedent and lead to more lawsuits in France for harm done in other countries by the pesticide Nemagon.”

Farmworkers in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, the Philippines, West Africa, and the U.S. were exposed to the highly toxic, brominated organochlorine pesticide ingredient, DBCP (dibromochloropropane), from the 1960s until cessation of its use, which has varied from country to country. DBCP was sold in the pesticide products Nemagon and Fumazone as a soil fumigant and nematocide on banana plantations and other crops across Central America (especially), in western Africa, and in Hawaii.

As acknowledged by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DBCP has multiple adverse health impacts: decreased sperm production and mobility, disturbed estrous cycles, reduced phagocytosis by white blood cells, and malignant tumorigenesis, as well as mutagenesis. The IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) has classified it as a possible human carcinogen. The headline impact on agricultural workers has been reproductive sterility: a huge number of men were sterilized by exposure to this compound — an estimated 1,500 in Costa Rica in the 1970s, and tens of thousands across all regions of use by the 1990s.

DBCP was introduced to agriculture in the U.S. in 1955; as reported by the European Environment Agency, a mere six years later, laboratory experiments showed that the compound shrank rodent testicles and greatly reduced sperm quality and quantity; still, the chemical industry marketed the pesticide, and it became a commercial success. By 1975, production had reached 25 million pounds per year, and its use had spread from the U.S. to Central America, West Africa, the Philippines, and the Caribbean.

According to EPA, until 1977, DBCP was used on more than 40 different crops in the U.S. Then, EPA suspended registration for all products containing DBCP (excepting use on pineapple crops in Hawaii) from 1977 to 1979. In 1985, the agency announced its intent to cancel all registrations for DBCP; after that, even the use of existing stocks of DBCP was prohibited. Although agricultural use of the compound was functionally banned in the U.S. in 1979, primarily for causing sterility, its use continued abroad. In Nicaragua, for example, DBCP was legal from 1973–1993. Also, U.S.-based banana and pineapple producers continued to use Nemagon through the early 1980s at their production sites in countries with poorer environmental standards.

In a pattern of corporate irresponsibility, if not actual malfeasance, now commonly recognized — think Big Tobacco, Big Fossil Fuels, Big Pharma, Big Chem — Shell (Royal Dutch Shell) and Dow Chemical were aware as early as 1958 of toxicological data from experiments on male rats demonstrating that exposure to DBCP caused reproductive anomalies, including reduced testes size at airborne exposures of 5ppm (parts per million), and at 20ppm, sterility in all subjects. (Dow Chemical merged for a time with DuPont to become DowDuPont; in spring of 2019, that company disaggregated into Dow, DuPont, and Corteva, the last of which handles the agricultural seed, trait, and chemicals strands of the business.)

Farmworkers, particularly from banana plantations, who had suffered harms from DBCP — usually sterility — began to sue manufacturers (largely Dow and Shell) and large producers, such as Dole (formerly Standard Fruit Company, now Dole Food Company). Such frontline workers most affected by the ravages of pesticide use often face a Sisyphian task in seeking legal and monetary redress for those harms, as they confront giant corporate entities that leverage enormous resources to delay, delegitimize, and defeat the “little guys.” In these DBCP cases, that list includes flat-out stonewalling on payment by industry, repeated challenges to courts’ jurisdiction in the matter, and U.S. courts punting on these cases by outright refusing to hear them.

Some examples from that fraught landscape:

• In the 2000s, Nicaraguan courts ordered a total of $805 million in damages to be paid to hundreds of victims by Dow Chemical, Shell Oil, and Occidental Chemical (now OxyChem). The companies refused to pay, saying the courts lacked jurisdiction and had denied them fair trials. In one of those suits, in 2001, a court in Nicaragua ordered Shell, Dole, and Dow to pay $489 million to 500 male banana workers made sterile by DBCP. The companies refused to pay and counter-sued the plaintiffs for fraud, asking for $17 billion in damages. When a U.S. federal court was asked by the plaintiffs to enforce the Nicaraguan court judgment, the U.S. court refused to hear the case.
• Similar suits were filed in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
• In 2002, a case tried in a Nicaraguan court resolved when the judge ordered those same three companies to pay $490 million to 583 banana workers adversely affected by the use of the pesticide Nemagon (DBCP). The case was filed in Nicaragua under a law allowing any Nicaraguan worker to sue a foreign company. But Dow called the judgment “unenforceable” because the case was supposed to be moved to a U.S. court; further, defendants’ attorneys argued that the ruling was based on a Nicaraguan law criticized by its own attorney as “unconstitutional.” The companies again refused to pay.
• A 2005 case against Dole and Dow, brought by 150 Nicaraguans for injury by DBCP from their 1970–1982 work on Dole banana plantations, was found for the plaintiffs by a Nicaraguan court, which awarded them $97 million for the sterility and psychological suffering they had endured. A U.S. District Court in Miami then reversed that judgment, saying that it “was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunal or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law, and the rendering court did not have jurisdiction over Defendants.”
• A California court, in 2007, ordered Dow Chemical and Dole to pay $3.3 million to Nicaraguan farmworkers who had suffered sterility due to their exposure to DBCP. The suit was one of a group of five litigations involving 5,000 agricultural workers from Ecuador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama, who were left sterile after being exposed to the pesticide.

As Beyond Pesticides reported in 2004, “For the most part, U.S. judges have argued that their courts are not the appropriate arenas for trying these cases [that originate outside the U.S.], and only four percent of the rejected cases are re-filed in other countries. Under the civil codes of most Latin American countries, plaintiffs’ rights are weaker, there are fewer jury trials and they lack strong discovery rules. Some of the cases rejected in the U.S. were heard in other countries, but there the accused corporations wield strong influence or no longer hold sizable assets.”

Taking the suit to French courts is an attempt to secure some justice — and the $805 million — for the harms the workers have suffered and for which they’ve found no remedy in Central American or U.S. courts. As The New York Times reports, the “case now has a new life half a world away in Europe, where the companies have significant assets and 1,245 former workers and relatives are looking to collect the money. While French courts have been open to hearing cases linked to human rights abuses that have occurred elsewhere, this is the first with such a large monetary award at stake.” On [September 17], a French court froze shares of Dow worth about $110 million, pending a trial scheduled for January.

Plaintiffs hope to collect at least part of that sum, per the Nicaraguan court judgments, from Dow in France, and to secure the freezing and sale of assets owned by Dow, Shell, and OxyChem in other European countries where they do business — predicated on a European Union (EU) rule that allows a court order issued in a member state to be enforced in any of the 28 EU countries.

The companies maintain that the suits that were settled — all but Dole settled in 1997 with 26,000 former banana workers in Central America, Africa, and the Philippines for $41 million; and Dole settled in 2014 with 1,700 Nicaraguan former banana workers for an undisclosed amount. The workers and families suing in France were not party to either of those suits.

Dow claims that it did not get a fair trial in Nicaragua in this lawsuit. François-Henri Briard, one of the lawyers representing the workers and their relatives, has said, “We live in a globalized world where it’s easy for multinational companies to hide assets so as not to allow justice and court orders to be enforced. This is what the U.S. companies did in Nicaragua: they poisoned people, they were sentenced by the courts, and they left without paying anything.” He argues that in such a world, victims should also be allowed to cross borders to enforce payment. Another member of plaintiffs’ counsel, Stuart H. Smith, said, “Thousands of individuals were knowingly put into the zone of risk of these pesticides after [DBCP] was banned.”

It is noteworthy that, even with all the permitted pesticides that are in use, some that have been banned sometimes end up in continued use. Often, as with DBCP, a ban in the U.S. or Europe will take effect, but the compound is permitted for far longer in other parts of the world; also, unscrupulous manufacturers sometimes look for overseas markets in which to “dump” products they can no longer sell in the U.S.

Beyond Pesticides not only advocates for a rapid transition away from chemically intensive agriculture, but also, recognizes the economic and health impacts that pesticide use inflicts on those who work (and have worked) in the fields and orchards that produce much of the world’s food. Those who are harmed by industry’s negligence or malfeasance deserve redress and compensation. Read about agricultural justice issues at Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice web page.

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/business/energy-environment/dow-chemical-pesticide-banana-workers.html

(Beyond Pesticides, October 4, 2019) A Circuit Court judge in Lincoln County, Oregon has overturned a hard-won ban on aerial spraying of pesticides, citing preemption of state law over any local ordinance. In her late-September decision, Judge Sheryl Bachart wrote that Oregon’s Pesticide Control Act “expressly and conclusively displaces any local ordinance regarding pesticide use. The intention of the legislature is apparent and unambiguous.” She noted in her opinion that the Oregon Revised Statutes (the codified laws of the state of Oregon), Chapter 634.057 “prohibits local governments from making any ordinance, rule or regulation governing pesticide sale or use.”

Voters in the county approved the subject ban on the aerial spraying of pesticides (Measure 21-177) in 2017, the initiative having been spurred by the work of Lincoln County Community Rights (LCCR), a grassroots organization that “seeks to educate and empower people to exercise their right of local community self-government in matters that pertain to their fundamental rights, their natural environment, their quality of life, their health and their safety.” In its advocacy for the initiative, the group cited both the harm done by aerial pesticide spraying to people and ecosystems, and the injustice of laws — often drafted by corporations for approval by legislatures — that make it illegal for the people to protect their health and safety more stringently than state regulations allow.

Immediately after the 2017 vote — a “win” for the local community — commercial fisherman and timberland owner Rex Capri and Wakefield Farms, LLC, both of whom used aerial spraying on their properties (prior to the ban), filed a legal challenge to the ban ordinance, which has been largely in effect during the two years since the ordinance passed.

The basis of the lawsuit lay in their claims that Lincoln County (or any political subdivision of the state) lacks the authority to create such an ordinance, that local statutes cannot override state law, and that the ban is barred by state regulations governing the use of pesticides, forestry practices, and the “right to farm.” The group that formed back in 2017 to oppose the ban initiative, the Coalition to Defeat Measure 21-177, is pleased with the news. In response to the judge’s ruling, the coalition’s director, Alan Fujishin, said, “Pesticide use by Lincoln County’s farmers, foresters, fishermen, vegetation managers and pest control professionals is already carefully regulated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture and supporting agencies — as it should be.”

LCCR joined in the case of Rex Capri and Wakefield Farms, LLC vs. Dana W. Jenkins and Lincoln County as an intervenor-defendant. Rio Davidson, a member of LCCR, called the judge’s ruling “heartbreaking.” He noted that during the two-years-plus when the ban was in effect, most large companies shifted to ground application of pesticides; he now expects that most will revert to aerial spraying.

In an LCCR statement of September 30 — titled “Timber Corporations Have More Rights Than People of Lincoln County Says Court; Aerial Spray Ban Overturned” — Mr. Davidson added, “The fight for our legal, constitutional, and fundamental right of local self-government marches on, and it is going to take the political will of the people to make it a reality if we ever want to stop living under the thumb of corporate government.” LCCR plans to appeal the ruling.

The LCCR statement asserts that Judge Bachart had failed to consider the right of local self-government, and that this right must prevail against state preemption when exercised to protect health, safety, and welfare. LCCR also stated, “It is widely recognized that, under the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, states have the authority to recognize and secure ‘unenumerated’ rights (rights not expressly stated in the Constitution), and thereby to establish greater rights at the state level than the protections provided under federal law.” This argument has been made by Beyond Pesticides, CELDF (Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund), and other advocates in laying groundwork for greater local authority over threats to communities.

In covering the Lincoln County case in 2017, Beyond Pesticides noted, “The case points to the legal conundrum that localities face in trying to protect their residents, lands, and resources from the assaults of pesticides, GMOs (genetically modified organisms), factory farms, fracking sites, or a host of other ills that communities may find objectionable because of health, safety, and/or environmental concerns. As communities (in the form of towns, counties, or cities) initiate efforts to establish regulations that may be more protective than prevailing state laws are, states and, very often, corporations persistently challenge those initiatives, arguing that state statutes supersede local authority to regulate. Such deference to state authority and statute is referred to as preemption — the use of state law to nullify the authority of a ‘lower’ level of government, or a specific statute or ordinance, on that preemptive basis.”

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

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

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

Beyond Pesticides has covered many of the numerous efforts of localities to establish more-stringent controls over pesticide use than respective state laws allow. Among them: in 2012, Cuyahoga County banned most chemical insecticides, weed killers, and other pesticides on county property. In 2013, the Takoma Park, Maryland City Council passed a law that restricted use of cosmetic lawn pesticides on public and private property within the city. The Town of Ogunquit, Maine banned the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers on private property in 2014. Montgomery County, Maryland created a law similar to Takoma Park’s in 2015. South Portland, Maine, followed by Portland, Maine have adopted ordinances that stop the use of lawn and landscape pesticides. Also in 2015, Thurston County, Washington banned the use of neonicotinoid insecticides on county-owned and -managed lands.

All of these efforts represent the interest of the public in reducing the health and environmental threats of the use of toxic chemicals in their local communities. A study covered by Beyond Pesticides earlier in 2019 shows that “‘By eliminating the ability of local governments to enact ordinances to safeguard inhabitants from health risks posed by pesticides, state preemption laws denigrate public health protections [authors’ words].’” Track developments in municipal and county efforts to establish greater local protections with Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog, and its journal, Pesticides and You.

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

Source: https://www.klcc.org/post/judge-overturns-lincoln-county-ban-aerial-pesticides

Fig. 3 Geographic distribution of antimicrobial resistance in LIMCs. (A) P50, the proportion of antimicrobial compounds with resistance higher than 50%.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 3, 2019) A study in the journal Science focuses on the global threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) due to overuse of animal antibiotics in food produced for low- and middle-income countries. Authors conclude, “the portfolio of antimicrobials used to raise animals for food is rapidly getting depleted, with important consequences for animal health, farmers’ livelihoods, and potentially for human health.” Highest resistance rates were observed for the most commonly used antimicrobials in animal production: tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and penicillins.

Researchers used data from 901 point prevalence surveys – a data collection tool used to identify number of infections – from low- and middle-income countries that reported antimicrobial resistance rates of common infectious microbes (e.g. E. coli, Salmonella spp.) found in animals raised for food production. Using geospatial models they produced global maps of antimicrobial resistance.

The important findings include:

• From 2000-2018, the proportion of antimicrobial compounds with resistance higher than 50% (P50) increased from 0.15 to 0.41 in chickens and from 0.13 to 0.34 in pigs and plateaued between 0.12 and 0.23 in cattle.
• Global maps of antimicrobial resistance show hotspots of resistance in northeastern India, northeastern China, northern Pakistan, Iran, eastern Turkey, the south coast of Brazil, Egypt, the Red River delta in Vietnam, and the areas surrounding Mexico City and Johannesburg.
• Areas where resistance is just starting to emerge are Kenya, morocco, Uruguay, southern Brazil, central India, and southern China.

Meat consumption has increased in low- and middle-income countries due to global expansion of intensive animal production systems, often taking the form of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOS). As animals are clustered together, risk of disease increases and therefore antimicrobials are often used preventively.

The World Health Organization (WHO) told its member states in 2017 to reduce veterinary antimicrobial use due to the potential threat it poses to human health. Antimicrobial resistance is becoming a more common global issue with estimates of 700,000 to a million deaths per year.

Beyond Pesticides wrote extensively on the topic of antibiotic resistance – a subset of antimicrobial resistance – and its relationship to food production in 2016. Antibiotic use is prohibited in all organic production. Though organic standards require sick animals to be treated, animal products from that treated animal cannot be sold as organic.

As stated in Pesticides and You, “It may not be widely appreciated that use of antibiotics on fruit trees can contribute to resistance to the antibiotic in human pathogens. The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely ‘vertical,’ that is from parent to progeny—but can be ‘horizontal’— from one bacterial species to another. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria or commensal gut bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens.”

The basic mechanism is as follows. If bacteria on the plants and in the soil are sprayed with an antibiotic, those with genes for resistance to the chemical increase compared to those susceptible to the antibiotic. Resistance genes exist for both streptomycin and tetracycline, and spraying with these chemicals increases the frequency of resistant genotypes by killing those susceptible to the antibiotic and leaving the others. Those genes may be taken up by other bacteria through a number of mechanisms, collectively known as ‘horizontal gene transfer.’”

The same principle of horizontal gene transfer applies to antimicrobial resistance created during animal production. The authors of this new study suggest that countries with high AMR, such as China, take immediate steps to restrict animal use of antimicrobials critical to human medicine. They suggest high-income countries support the transition to sustainable animal production through, for example, “a global fund to subsidize improvements in farm-level biosafety and biosecurity.” In countries where AMR is low or just starting to emerge, they point out, it is possible to intervene and point farmers in a different direction. Beyond Pesticides advocates, for the sake of human safety and environmental sustainability, that direction should be organic.

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

Source: Science

(Beyond Pesticides, October 2, 2019) New data gleaned from the Kuakini Honolulu Heart Program — a longitudinal study of men of Japanese descent living on Oahu — demonstrate that occupational exposure to high levels of pesticides can increase risks for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the forms of coronary heart disease (CHD) or stroke (CVA, or cerebrovascular accident). Further, researchers determined both that workers who experience high-level exposures may not experience such effects for years afterward, and that the maximum subsequent effects were seen within a decade of exposure. The study’s conclusion highlights the importance of pesticide applicator use of protective gear when handling toxic pesticides. These risks and harms could be eliminated through a transition to non-chemical means for pest control in agriculture, land management, and home and personal practices.

The Kuakini Honolulu Heart Program, after enrolling more than 8,000 Japanese-American men, 45–68 years old and living on Oahu, Hawaii between 1965 and 1968, has continued to examine and interview these subjects, and document morbidity and mortality among them. This study, which performed statistical analyses on 7,557 of the subjects, is the longest longitudinal study of cardiovascular disease and any association with chronic occupational pesticide exposure, taking into account epidemiologic risk factors for CVD. Data on rates of heart disease and stroke were available through December 1999, representing as many as 34 years of follow-up. Exposure to pesticides in subjects, who self-reported their occupations, was estimated via an OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) tool that assesses intensity and length of occupational exposure for each occupation.

As the study co-authors note in their research paper, published in the Journal of the American Heart Association in late September, previous research that has evaluated vocational chemical exposure and CVA, CHD, and CVD have looked only at CVD mortality. These researchers hypothesized that occupational exposure to pesticides would be a risk factor for CVD, CHD, and CVA, so they set out to examine where there is an association between such exposures and incidence of those three outcomes. They adjusted their analyses to accommodate for all relevant risk factors for CV (that were identified and measured as of 1999) and found, in the first 10 years of post-exposure follow-up, and compared to vocationally non-exposed men:

• a roughly 45% higher risk of CHD or CVA in those with high-level pesticide exposure; the figure was 46% after adjusting for age, and 42% after adjusting for additional CHD risk factors beyond age
• no significant relationship between low-to-moderate exposure to pesticides and the risk of CHD or CV

Occupations associated with pesticide exposures are typically agricultural or industrial, and include such workers as pesticide applicators, landscapers, forestry and agricultural workers, factory workers, pesticide manufacturing emplooyees, aircraft mechanics, and jet fuel refinery employees. Although the specific pesticides to which subjects had been exposed were not known, according to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture in 1969, common pesticides in Hawaii included several classes of organophosphates, organochlorines, insecticides, fumigants, and herbicides. (Many of these chemicals — such as DDT, heptachlor, chlordane, dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, and toxaphene — have since then been banned because they are persistent organic pollutants.)

Cardiovascular health effects of exposures can manifest, as noted, years down the road, although the incidence dissipates after the first 10 years. This is because, in part, some pesticide compounds have very long half-lives and can persist for decades. Beatriz L. Rodriguez, MD, PhD, MPH, study co-author and professor of geriatric medicine at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, commented that, “After following the men for 34 years, the link between being exposed to pesticides at work and heart disease and stroke was no longer significant. This was probably because other factors tied to aging became more important, masking the possible relation of pesticides and cardiovascular disease later in life.”

The co-authors also identify some clinical healthcare implications of their findings:
• healthcare providers ought to be mindful of occupational exposure risks, particularly for those who work in agriculture
• both acute and chronic exposures to pesticides (or any other chemicals) need to be documented in people’s medical recordsagricultural workers need to employ personal protective measures, wear protective clothing and gear, and get monitored for development of cardiovascular disease

There are limitations of this research; one is that the cohort group within the study that had moderately intense exposure to pesticides constituted a small sample size, so researchers combined it with the low‐pesticide‐exposure group, which also contained a small number of subjects. Another limitation is that all subjects were male, as well as of Japanese descent. Thus, results may not be applicable to women or to people of different “racial” descent.

Zara Berg, PhD, study co-author and adjunct science professor at Fort Peck Community College in Poplar, Montana, noted that, “Previous studies have found that men and women may respond differently to pesticide exposure. One class of pesticides may give women heart attacks but not men and other pesticides may give men heart disease but not women. Hormones may also play a role in the impact of pesticide exposure and the development of cardiovascular disease.”

Beyond Pesticides regularly covers new research on the many health impacts of pesticide use, including those related to cardiac health, e.g.: 2011 coverage of a relationship between exposure to organochlorine pesticides and the development of atherosclerosis, and December 2018 reporting on associations between pesticide exposure and CVD among Hispanic and Latino workers in some U.S. cities. In addition, Beyond Pesticides has reported on evidence that endocrine disrupting chemicals, which some pesticides are, indirectly boost risk for cardiovascular (and other) anomalies, including this study that shows risks for children.

The Beyond Pesticides Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a useful source of information about disease development associated with exposures to pesticides. This report, Good Health Harmed by a Cascade of Complex Pesticide Effects, provides a broader look at health impacts. Such holistic context is important because human bodies comprise complicated systems that interact with one another, and whose functioning is mediated by chemical signals, whether as hormones, neurotransmittters, or others. Compromised function of any of those systems or of the body’s signaling capacity — whether because of pesticide exposures or any of a multitude of other factors — can affect multiple bodily systems.

To protect their cardiac and general health, individuals who may be at risk for high-level pesticide exposure through their job duties and sites must be extremely attentive to health and safety precautions because of their elevated risks. This is especially true for agricultural workers and pesticide applicators. The chemical assaults of pesticide exposure should be far more comprehensively evaluated by federal regulators, and those assessments should include adjuvant as well as active ingredients in pesticide products, as well as endocrine-disrupting, synergistic, low-dose, and epigenetic impacts.

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

Source: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.119.012569

(Beyond Pesticides, October 1, 2019) Commonly used fungicides induce trophic cascades that can lead to the overgrowth of algae, according to research published in the journal Chemosphere. While the current process for regulating pesticides in the U.S. focuses on the acute toxicity of pesticides, and may consider some chronic impacts, real world complexities as described in the current study are not reviewed. This gap in our assessment can lead to significant adverse effects not just on individual species, but entire ecosystems.

Researchers investigated how fungal parasites known as chytrids control the growth of phytoplankton. While some strains of chytrids are notorious for their impact to frog species, some do in fact provide important stopgaps within ecosystems.

“By infecting cyanobacteria, parasitic fungi limit their growth and thus reduce the occurrence and intensity of toxic algal blooms,” says IGB researcher Ramsy Agha, PhD, co-author the study. “Whereas we usually perceive disease as a negative phenomenon, parasites are very important for the normal functioning of aquatic ecosystems and can — as in this case — also have positive effects. Pollution by fungicides can interfere with this natural process,” the researcher adds.

The agricultural fungicides tebuconazole and azoxystrobin were tested on chytrid-infected toxic bloom-forming cyanobacteria in a laboratory setting. A control group was also established to compare effects. At concentrations that are likely to occur in the real world, exposure to both of the fungicides resulted in a significant reduction in infections by the chytrid parasite.

These results indicate that use of the fungicide may be facilitating harmful algae blooms by suppressing fungal pathogens that may otherwise control their growth.

This is not the first time that pesticides have been implicated in harmful algae blooms. A 2008 study published in the journal Nature found that the herbicide atrazine directly killed off free floating algae, which permitted run-away growth of attached algae. In this study, researchers found additional ecosystem-level impacts. The growth in attached algae led to higher populations of snails, a vector for a parasite that can infect amphibians. As a result, more snails, and a higher parasite load led to a higher infection rate in local frog populations, which led to a population decline.

Beyond Pesticides is working to raise awareness of the difficult-to-perceive yet critically important ecosystem-level effects of pesticide use. As we noted with research published last week estimating over 3 billion birds, comprising 30% of the overall US population, lost since 1970, that report was more than a report on birds, it is a report on gnat, caddisfly, and earthworm declines, on species that create the foundation of the food web.

As study co-author Justyna Wolinska, PhD, notes, “As the cultivation and identification of aquatic fungi in scientific labs is continuously improving, risk evaluations should consider the impact of fungicides on aquatic fungi.” There is a need not only to consider the issue raised by the current study, but the wide ranging indirect impacts of pesticide use.

For more information on how pesticide cause affects that impact entire food webs and ecosystems, see Beyond Pesticides’ article Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem.

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

Source: Chemosphere, Science Daily