(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2020) As communities across the U.S. brace for an unimaginable health crisis and difficult economic times in the wake of COVID-19, the Beyond Pesticides Hawai’i team has linked arms with Maui’s small farms and community organizations to make sure local farms have the support they need to feed communities and stay in business. The virus is causing shutdowns of everything from farmers markets to restaurants, but community organizers in Maui are making an effort to transform COVID-19 related challenges into a spring board for long-term increase in locally produced, organic food—a sorely needed commodity in Hawai’i. 

Hawai’i is the most isolated island chain on the planet. Its fertile soil and climatic conditions coalesce to make Hawai’i potentially a major producer of nutritious food for its residents and for export. However, a complicated plantation history and off-island investment influence has skewed the economy toward tourism and development. The current stark reality is that 85-90% of Hawai’i’s food is imported, making the islands particularly vulnerable to disasters and global events that might disrupt the economy or infrastructure. 

COVID-19 is now disrupting the economy and local infrastructure of Maui.

Farmers markets and other public gatherings have closed. Tourism is down (which, for health reasons, many Maui residents support), causing reduced demand for produce from hotels and restaurants. Small farmers and value-added product producers on Maui watched their income streams dry up nearly overnight. At the same time, unprecedented crowds are showing up at big box stores to prepare for quarantine, buying food shipped in from all over the world, and leaving store shelves empty.

Determined to turn chaos into opportunity, community leaders in Hawai’i have started organizing to connect local farms to resident consumers in ways they hope will last far beyond the COVID-19 shutdowns.

In just a few days, The Common Ground Collective, a local non-profit, quickly launched an online, interactive Shop Local Directory, where consumers can search for locally grown/produced products in their area.

Through social media outreach and “the coconut wireless” (word of mouth), one organic farm doubled its CSA (community-supported agriculture) membership overnight. helping more farms set up CSA programs with digital subscriptions and front porch drop-off service, providing farms much needed business development support while limiting personal interaction during COVID-19 concerns.

From our Hawai’i Program Director, Autumn Ness: “Beyond Pesticides Hawai’i is dedicated to help set up necessary infrastructure and transaction systems to get local farm products to local consumers. We are here to help Hawai’i farms get through this crisis and also build long-term systems that drive demand to support the rapid increase in organic farming in Hawai’i. If you are a farm that needs help getting through the COVID-19 shutdowns, please contact us at [email protected].”

A letter from U.S. Representative Pingree of Maine to Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week illustrates how community farmers across the country are facing similar challenges. Rep. Pingree urged Speaker Pelosi to take actions to support these farmers, including emergency disaster payments, emergency farm loans, and suspending Farm Service Agency (FSA) loan payments. “We should provide emergency disaster payments to farmers selling fresh and minimally processed foods in local and regional markets that have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Rep. Pingree, “Disaster payments could be made available for donating products to the emergency food system that would have otherwise been sold to institutions, such as schools and universities, or through direct marketing channels, such as farmers’ markets.”

According to one Oklahoma farmer, “90%+ of our income comes from the market and the CSA we have. Like many other farmers, the next few months are going to be a time of trying to develop alternative marketing strategies. Our uncertain financial future for the year will have to take first priority. [M]y focus now is on finding creative ways of getting our produce to our customers in the most time effective means possible. But farmers are adaptable and innovative!”

Advocates say we can reimagine our food system with this kind of community engagement—not just in times of chaos, but even in normal day- to-day lives (when more normal times return). 

“Here’s the thing,” says Ms. Ness, She continued: “The chemical-intensive, industrial agriculture model dominates our food system because at one time small, diversified, organic farms were rapidly disappearing. While their numbers are starting to grow again, we have to make sure that organic farms are supported in times of crisis if we are to successfully regulate toxic pesticides in agriculture, increase organic food systems that feed us, and create solutions to the climate crisis. Communities across the U.S. can step up to support their local farms in this chaotic time. The future of our food system, as well as the long-term health of our people and local economies, depends on the choices we make in the next few months and how we turn those choices into long term systemic change.”

Beyond Pesticides, rejecting chemical-intensive practices, supports the transition to organic practices that promote plant resilience and decrease the need for toxic pesticide use and synthetic, petroleum-based fertilizers. In this time of calamity and as U.S. agriculture becomes increasingly toxic with increasingly lax regulations and the continued use of pesticides and other chemical-intensive practices, it is important to organize in your community and also go organic in your own garden.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 18, 2020) Freshwater habitats are threatened now—more than ever—by the adverse effects of pesticide pollution, according to a report published in Scientific Reports by a collaborative research team from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) and the Kenya-based International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE). Pesticide pollution, attributed to runoff from agricultural farms, indirectly increased the rate of the tropical disease schistosomiasis, which infects over 280 million people (2018). This research underlines the range of uncertainties that exist as a result of pesticide contamination, making it critically important that subtropical areas where this disease threat exists move toward organic and pesticide-free approaches. 

Increased prevalence of this disease is devastating to socioeconomic development in affected regions, as life expectancy, employment rate, and gross domestic product (GDP) decreases.

Schistosomiasis (snail fever), or bilharzia, is a tropical disease caused by parasitic flatworms (trematodes) in the genus Schistosoma and transmitted via freshwater snail (genus Biomphalaria) to its definitive human host. Freshwater snails act as a vector for schistosomiasis as they play a vital role in the lifecycle of the parasitic flatworm.

Professor Matthias Liess (Ph.D.), Head of the Department of System Ecotoxicology at the UFZ, and his research team investigated pesticide pollution’s impact on the macroinvertebrate community composition in regions where schistosomiasis persisted. The research sampled forty-eight freshwater study sites in the Kenyan Lake Victoria Basin with a range of habitats suitable for schistosomiasis transmission. To confirm freshwater snail’s high pesticide tolerance, UFZ investigated acute neonicotinoid, organophosphate, and pyrethroid sensitivity in all macroinvertebrate taxa, in 6 different regions within the study area. Freshwater snails dominated over the less-tolerant invertebrate opponents exclusively in habitats characterized by pesticide pollution and eutrophication.

Laboratory testing discovered freshwater snails have a higher tolerance toward commonly used agriculture pesticides, like neonicotinoids (neonics) and organophosphates. This tolerance enabled the host snail to persist in an environment where non-tolerant (macro)invertebrates could not. In turn, the population of parasitic flatworms increased with its snail host. Human exposure to infested water, through skin contact, adversely impacts human health. Infection associated with this disease can initiate abdominal pain, diarrhea, bloody stool, liver failure, and long-term disabilities. UFZ and ICIPE researchers concluded, “…[for] the first time that in the field, pesticide concentrations considered ‘safe’ in environmental risk assessment have indirect effects on human health.”

Freshwater snails acted as an intermediate host for parasitic flatworms that presented the deadly tropical pathogen. Increased input of pesticides from agriculture paired with an already unhealthy marine environment bolsters host snail population for the parasitic worm to develop. Host snails are more tolerant of pesticide inputs than their predators. Predators act as a biological control agent for the host snail population, and a sustainable approach to mitigate schistosomiasis disease events.

This study is just one example of pesticide use causing a trophic cascade in unhealthy marine environments. A research study published in PLOS ONE  directly links a top-down trophic cascade to pesticide use in aquatic ecosystems dominated by predatory invertebrates. High pesticide concentrations results in vast predatory invertebrate mortality; freshwater snails exhibit no observable mortality at pesticide’s maximum concentration. A 2018 mesocosm study also displayed that pesticides indirectly favored the freshwater snail that hosted the human-pathogenic schistosomes. Neonicotinoid use eradicates the host snail’s predators and supports destructive planktonic algae (periphyton), a food source for snails. An unhealthy marine environment caused by improper waste/sewage disposal exacerbates conditions for the parasitic worm to thrive. The resilience of the intermediate host snail, coupled with the loss of predator biodiversity, allowed the parasite to flourish and infect its human host at an elevated rate.

Control strategies must focus on a sustainable approach to controlling the intermediate host population to mitigate schistosomiasis transmission. Currently, control strategies for the disease treat the human host by administering the medication praziquantel to kill the adult flatworms, but this does not curb the reinfection rate. The disease can rebound in humans in an area where schistosomiasis is endemic.

Biological control for freshwater snails can reduce schistosomiasis events as the host snail is susceptible to predation by various organisms like shrimp, water bugs, and ostracods. These natural predators are sensitive to anthropogenic inputs like pesticides. Tropical regions that commonly practice extensive farming and are prone to heavy rainfall experience schistosomiasis more regularly.

Dr. Liess confirmed the study’s findings in ScienceDaily, “With our study, we were able to demonstrate that even low pesticide concentrations constitute a serious environmental risk and, in this respect, not only contribute to the decline in insect populations, but also indirectly promote dangerous diseases in humans… The results underline the urgent need for reassessing the environmental risk of low pesticide concentrations and for integrated disease management that includes a focus on the regulation and management of pesticides in areas where schistosomiasis is endemic or might be introduced due to potentially favorable ecological conditions.”

Regulation and elimination of pesticides can aid in reducing the propagation of harmful diseases exacerbated by pesticide use. There are a wide range of resources, which can be used to help gain knowledge and apply practices avoid pesticides use and their adverse effects. These include news stories, local organizations, school pesticide policies, regulatory contacts, and least-toxic pest control operators. Organic practices can successfully eliminate toxic pesticide use, especially in agriculture. Organic farming protects water quality as it reduces pesticide and nutrient runoff. Clean water is essential for human health, wildlife, and a balanced environment. Increased global participation in organic agriculture can eliminate the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture, promote biodiversity, and improve water quality to protect human and animal health. Buying organic products (food and non-food items), and advocating for organic regulations in the marketplace can help eradicate pesticide use and promote a healthy, sustainable future.

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

Source: Scientific Reports 

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2020) The number of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico is down 53% from last year, according to a count conducted by World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Mexico. While WWF indicates the decline was expected due to unfavorable weather conditions during the species southward migration, other environmental groups are raising red flags. “Scientists were expecting the count to be down slightly, but this level of decrease is heartbreaking,” said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Monarchs unite us, and more protections are clearly needed for these migratory wonders and their habitat.”

WWF’s count found that monarchs occupied seven acres this winter, down from 15 acres last year. Reports indicate that 15 acres is a minimum threshold needed to prevent a collapse of the butterfly’s migration and possible extinction. This was the goal stated by the 2015 White House Pollinator Task Force, which the current administration is failing to see through.

While weather conditions play an important role in monarch migration from the U.S. and Canada south to Mexico, the species is under threat from a range of environmental factors. Monarchs depend on milkweed plants to lay eggs, and monarch caterpillars feed solely on these plants before metamorphosis. But the rapid spread of genetically engineered crops throughout the country has decimated the milkweed habitat on which the butterflies depend. According to research published in 2014, roughly 70% of all milkweed losses between 1995 and 2013 were located in agricultural areas.

Recent studies indicate that even when monarchs can find milkweed plants to lay their eggs, pesticide contamination from chemical intensive agriculture may be undermining their ability to continue their journey. A 2019 study found 14 different agricultural pesticides on milkweed tested near farm fields in Indiana, including the neonicotinoid class of insecticides implicated in the decline of pollinators. Research published late last year finds that monarchs that feed on neonicotinoid-contaminated milkweed experience a significantly shortened lifespan. Most monarchs (79%) exposed to neonicotinoids died within 22 days, while only one in five of those unexposed perished.

Monarch overwintering grounds are also threatened by habitat loss from illegal logging. Last month, two renown monarch activists who fought against illegal logging were murdered in the same week. Raúl Hernández Romero’s body was found inside a butterfly sanctuary in Ocampo, Mexico, while Homero Gómez González was found in a well. Both showed signs that they were attacked.

With the range of threats confronting this iconic species, it is a wonder that we still have some time to protect, and potentially save the species. The challenge is real; in the 1990s the eastern monarch population numbered nearly one billion butterflies. Counts from 2018 recorded only 93 million monarchs. Numbers are even more concerning for the western monarch. Cheryl Schultz, PhD, an associate professor at Washington State University Vancouver notes, “Western monarchs are faring worse than their eastern counterparts. In the 1980s, 10 million monarchs spent the winter in coastal California. Today there are barely 300,000.” Dr. Schultz’s research finds that western monarchs face an 86% risk of extinction within the next 50 years.

Legal experts are calling on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to place monarchs under federal protection. “Both the law and science require that we must protect monarchs under the Endangered Species Act before it’s too late,” said George Kimbrell, legal director for the Center for Food Safety. “Monsanto’s profits cannot come before the monarch’s future.”

Help monarchs rebound by taking action. While many in the U.S. and around the world are currently in quarantine or lockdown due to the coronavirus, you can still make progress in protecting the environment. Take some time to prepare your garden for spring pollinators; plant organic seeds and starts and tell your state’s Governor to act. Work on those more detailed letters you’ve wanted write to your elected officials, urging them to support laws that would protect monarchs and other pollinators, like the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. And continue to connect and organize with you friends and neighbors virtually, through sites like Nextdoor and Facebook. For more information on the imperiled monarchs, see past Daily News articles and Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.

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

Source: World Wildlife Fund Mexico; Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2020) As the number of people infected with Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases, many people are looking for sound advice about how to protect themselves and their families. There is much uncertainty. “It’s fair to say that as the trajectory of the outbreak continues, many people in the United States will at some point in time either this year or next be exposed to this virus, and there’s a good chance many will become sick,” said Nancy Messonnier, M.D., director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “But … based on what we know about this virus, we do not expect most people to develop serious illness.”

Tell EPA not to recommend toxic chemicals for disease prevention.

While people are seeking answers, EPA’s published list, Registered Antimicrobial Products for Use Against Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the Cause of COVID-19, does not offer helpful advice. The list contains products containing toxic chemicals such as chlorine bleach, peroxyacetic acid, alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chlorides, didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride, and other “quats,” sodium dichloro-s-triazinetrione, and hydrochloric acid. In addition to their outright toxicity, some of these can also trigger asthmatic attacks.

On the other hand, CDC’s website makes it clear that such toxic chemicals are unnecessary. The commonsense nontoxic advice should be heeded:

• Avoid close contact with people who are sick.
• Avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth.
• Stay home when you are sick.
• Cover your cough or sneeze with a tissue, then throw the tissue in the trash.
• Clean and disinfect frequently touched objects and surfaces using a regular household cleaning spray or wipe.
• Wash your hands often with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. If soap and water are not readily available, use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol. Always wash hands with soap and water if hands are visibly dirty.

Soap and water—or, if washing is not possible, using a hand sanitizer with at least 60% alcohol—is as effective as stronger chemicals. For cleaning hard surfaces, 70% alcohol (common rubbing alcohol) is sufficient.

Tell EPA to support least-toxic disease prevention.

Beyond Pesticides will submit this petition to EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP).

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2020) The European Commission’s proposed (post-2020) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is a failure and must be dramatically changed to embrace organic practices and support small farmers, according to a paper written by 21 scientists and published in the British Ecological Society’s journal, People and Nature. The authors point to provisions that permit anemic implementation of critical sustainability goals, and say that as it stands, the CAP fails “with respect to biodiversity, climate, soil, [and] land degradation as well as socio‐economic challenges.” The authors call on the European Parliament, Council, and Commission to adopt 10 urgent action points that advance a goal that “all CAP elements, without exception, should be aligned with the principles of sustainability, multi‐functionality and public payments for public goods.” The paper’s authors say that the CAP continues, in fact, to support practices that exacerbate the climate emergency, soil erosion, land degradation, and biodiversity loss, and fails to fund initiatives that could address climate and other critical issues.

Happening concurrently with the CAP is development of the European Commission’s (EC’s) “European Green Deal,” which the EC describes as a roadmap for making the EU’s economy sustainable, and making Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. The European Green Deal website further says: “This will happen by turning climate and environmental challenges into opportunities across all policy areas and making the transition just and inclusive for all.” The European Commission (EC) recently announced ​plans to make the deal legally binding for all member states.

The sentiments of the paper — Action needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges — are endorsed by 3600 scientists from 63 countries, as reported by BirdLife International. Beyond Pesticides has pointed, for years, to the need for a shift to organic and regenerative agricultural practices that do achieve gains for soil health, climate mitigation, ecosystem health, and biodiversity. The rise in demand for organics is one sign of progress because organic agriculture is not only a solution to the global food crisis, but also, to the health and ecological risks of conventional, chemically intensive farming.

As reported by The New York Times, the planned overhaul of Europe’s farm policy and plan for 2021–2027, and its funding — to be negotiated during 2020 — is largely “business as usual” in new, “climate friendly” packaging, according to these critics, who say it does not do nearly enough to protect the environment or support small farmers. The plan receives particular scorn because: (1) farmers would continue to be paid subsidies on the basis of the acreage they cultivate, rather than for implementing environmentally sound practices (such as organic farming and agro-forestry), and (2) subsidies would continue to be paid for livestock farming, which worsens greenhouse gas emissions.

Birdlife.org writes: “The scientists express concern that national governments and the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament are diluting the environmental ambitions of the CAP ‘to defend the interests of a few at the expense of the many.’ At present, the main factor determining how much ‘income support’ a CAP recipient gets is the size of their farm: 80% of these payments goes to 20% of farmers. This means that farmers are stuck in a system where those with the most land receive most of the money — regardless of the environmental quality of their farming. A recent New York Times investigation has already exposed how the CAP serves narrow, national, oligarchical and agro-industry interests, even directly benefiting Czech Prime Minister, billionaire Andrej Babiš.” To boot, the authors charge that the CAP would continue to waste taxpayer funds on measures that are ineffective: “‘Billions of euros of taxpayers’ money are about to be poured down the drain,’ the scientists said in a statement.”

A 2019 New York Times article covered the contrast between Europe’s “green” reputation and the reality of its current farm policy, the ongoing damage from which includes dead zones in the Baltic Sea from agricultural runoff and increased farm emissions of greenhouse gases. In addition, the NYT has reported on the extensive corruption, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, in the system of agricultural subsidies, which comprise nearly 40% of Europe’s budget.

The chief concerns the paper cites about the CAP are that it would:

• continue subsidies based on acreage, and with only “light green” (low-level) environmental requirements
• reduce budgets for Rural Development Programs that include climate mitigation measures
• involve some “greenwashing”: the EC represents that 40% of subsidies are “climate‐friendly,” but these payments “are not systematically linked to any effective measure for greenhouse gas reduction or climate adaptation”
• posit a “green architecture” that has only vague requirements, and would allow farmers and member states to opt for insufficiently bold initiatives and practices
• the evaluation metrics apply only to administrative and financial implementation of the CAP, and not to actual on-the-ground outcomes; the paper says: “‘impact’ indicators mostly describe farming structures rather than actual impacts. They are insufficient for an effective monitoring of the CAP objectives and instruments and provide little guidance for policy steering”
• extends insurance provisions without tying them to any requirement for risk-mitigation actions

Finally, the authors contend, the proposed post-2020 CAP lacks consistency and transparency, and repeats the often-criticized restructuring and renaming of CAP elements in ways that impede learning and undermine transparency and legitimacy.

The authors of the subject paper, and its 3,600 supporters, comment: “The ‘European Green Deal,’ published by the European Commission in December 2019, presents a new framework for EU policy‐making with high ambition to align economic processes with planetary boundaries. It states an intention to present a ‘Farm to Fork Strategy on sustainable food.’ This may offer an important opportunity for the European Institutions to make evidence‐based decisions toward a future‐proof CAP. However, the Green Deal is vague with respect to the CAP.”

In light of the concerns about the CAP, the paper’s authors and supporters proffer 10 “action points” to address the inadequacies of the proposal. Some of those would:

• transform subsidies into “payments for public goods” that would align environmental and socio‐environmental dimensions of sustainability
• provide sufficient support for effective climate change mitigation
• support measures to maintain ecosystems and biodiversity
• promote innovative measures that reward positive environmental outcomes
• revise evaluation procedures and metrics
• strengthen environmental monitoring and enforcement
• identify and address global impacts of the CAP (particularly in the vulnerable southern hemisphere)
• improve governance of the CAP and its reform to enhance transparency and accountability, thereby regaining legitimacy and public trust

The paper’s summary statements include: “Sustainability is a top societal priority and an urgent challenge. It is enshrined as a goal in the Treaty of the European Union. Given the documented poor performance of the CAP with respect to sustainability, business as usual is no longer an option. Urgent and efficient actions are needed to ensure environmental and social sustainability and long‐term food security.”

• This echoes many of the positions that Beyond Pesticides has taken on the relationship between agriculture and environmental concerns, including mitigation of climate impacts, and support of functional ecosystems and biodiversity. Agriculture has a huge role to play in addressing these issues. Organic and regenerative practices are necessary not only in order to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals, but also, to ensure the long-term sustainability of food production, the environment, and the economy. They are a critical linchpin of a sustainable future.

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

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/world/europe/radical-changes-urged-for-huge-eu-farm-program.html and https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10080

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2020) Farmworkers walked out of an orchard in Sunnyside, Washington on Friday, March 6 to demand improved working conditions. Over a dozen individuals cited unacceptable issues, such as toxic pesticide exposure, unfair wages, and lack of paid breaks. Their employer, Evans Fruit, owns and farms over 8,000 acres in the state. These workers represent the ongoing fight against injustice perpetuated by the chemical-intensive agriculture industry.

Evans Fruit workers said the company gives insufficient protective gear and training before requiring workers to spray pesticides for most of their 12 to 15-hour workdays. Jorge de los Santos, who has worked for Evans Fruit for five years, told the Yakima Herald, “My eyes (were) constantly irritating me.”

“All we’re asking for is for fair wages and fair (working conditions),” said Rene Isidoro, another farmworker.

Evans Fruit declined to comment, but worker representatives said the company has been unwilling to negotiate. “The company basically said it was their way or the highway,” said United Farm Workers (UFW) of America Pacific Northwest coordinator Victoria Ruddy.

“We are good workers, responsible workers,” Ms. Isidoro said, “We like the work we do. We want to do better in our work. We’re here simply to ask for better working conditions.”

Farmworkers are a frontline community to the fight against toxic pesticides. Doctors annually diagnose up to 20,000 poisonings among agricultural workers – and that statistic only represents what is publicly reported. Working mothers are exposed to chemicals that can have long-lasting impacts on their unborn children, such as brain function damage.

Farmworkers are courageous to stand up for their rights, as they face hurdles of vulnerability such as immigration status and limited rights. “Oftentimes workers are too scared to come forward,” said Isidoro.

Federal laws exclude farmworkers from basic protections like the National Labor Relations Act, which forbids employers from firing employees for union organizing, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that requires overtime pay be 1.5 times the regular wage. Farmworker exclusion from FLSA also means that workers on small farms are not guaranteed minimum wage and allows children twelve and over to legally work in the fields. 

This current fight of the Sunnyside farmworkers hearkens back to historic leadership of organizers like Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, whose work is inextricable from the advent of the environmental justice movement. Author and organizer Randy Shaw described this history in the 2017 documentary Dolores, stating, “The environmental justice movement said that certain environmental hazards are disproportionately impacting on people of color. It wasn’t simply stopping DDT, but it was also making the larger point, you’re only allowing this because of who the workers are, and their race and class background.”

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 is completely unacceptable for any industry today. Beyond Pesticides was founded in 1981 out of conversations with farmworkers about their sicknesses and miscarriage rates, and the lack of training, protective equipment, clean drinking water, and sanitation in the fields. It was clear then, as it is now, that the political process ignores or even facilitates ongoing poisoning.  Beyond Pesticides believes that we should stand up for those who harvest our food and support farmworkers like those from Evans Fruit. Furthermore, Evans Fruit – which touts a commitment to “social and environmental responsibilities” on its website – should forgo toxic chemicals that poison their workers and transition to organic.

Source: Yakima Herald

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2020) Worldwide, organic farming practices quadrupled from 2000 to 2018, with over 180 countries leading a global transition to organic agriculture. Newly published global survey data by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements – Organics International (IFOAM) reveal global organic agriculture to be at an all-time high, with 71.5 million hectares (mha) of farmland in production. Organic agriculture’s rise in popularity makes important progress toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, as organic agriculture is essential for a sustainable future; it is a solution to the global food crisis and eliminating the health risks engendered by chemical-intensive farming.

According to Monica Rubiolo, PhD of the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), “Access to quality data on organic farming not only helps to measure success toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals but also to orient decision-makers and other stakeholders along the whole value chain.” In a period of rapid population growth, a climate crisis, environmental degradation, and high energy costs, organic farming addresses human health, environment, and socioeconomic concerns.

Organically managed farmland increased by a total of 2 mha (2.9%), in all continents, between 2017 and 2018. Australia has the largest organic agricultural area (35.7 million hectares), followed by Argentina (3.6 million hectares), and China (3.1 million hectares). Organic farmlands constitute 10% of all agricultural land in over 16 countries, with the largest shares of organic farmland in Liechtenstein (38.5% percent), followed by Samoa (34.5 percent), and Austria (24.7 percent). Although global organic farmlands only comprise 1.5% of all agricultural land, the FiBL survey data display a 546% increase in organic farmland, since 1999.

The agricultural transition from chemical-intensive to organic farming is a  three-year process that can help explain why organic still comprises a relatively low percentage of overall farmland. However, as this report shows, organic continues to make steady progress, as the amalgamation of data over the past decade displays a positive, exponential trend in organic farmland growth.

“The global organic statistics have proven useful for development programs and supporting strategies for organic agriculture and markets, and they are crucial for monitoring the impact of these activities. This publication shows our ongoing engagement with transparency in the organic sector,” says Louise Luttikholt, IFOAM \—Organics International Executive Director, and Professor Urs Niggli, director of FiBL.

John Reganold, Ph.D., professor of Soil Science and Agroecology at Washington State University, suggests a reform of agricultural policies to help further develop and augment organic and other sustainable agriculture:

• Offer greater financial incentives for farmers to adopt conservation measures and scientifically sound sustainable, organic, and integrated crop or livestock production practices.
• Expand outreach and technical assistance that will provide farmers with better information about these transformative practices.
• Increase publicly funded research to improve and expand modern sustainable farming.

The global trend in organic agricultural growth, coupled with the increase in organic farmland, showcased the growth in organic market demand with the largest growth of organic market demand in 2018.

The survey data reports high consumer demand for organic food, as global organic retail sales continued to grow over the past year and surpassed $100 billion U.S. dollars at the end of 2018. The market research company Ecovia Intelligence reports that the U.S. led the 2018 organic market with $46.4 billion in sales, followed by Germany ($12.46 billion), and France ($10.4 billion). Major organic markets have seen a double-digit growth rate in response to the sales increase. France’s organic market demand increased by 15%, thus generated an additional $1.6 billion for the economy. The additional allocated economic income can help farmers transition from conventional, chemical-intensive farming to organic farming. In 2016, Denmark’s Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Fisheries planned to allocate more than $4 million to promote the organic market, almost $8 million to the public’s access to organic products, and subsidize farmer’s transition to organic agriculture. By 2018, Denmark became the country with the highest total organic shares in the food market, with 11.5% of the total food market completely organic.

India is the leading global producer in organic agriculture, providing a large number of employment opportunities, and regional amity. In the past decade, global producers of organic products increased by over 55%, for a total of 2.8 million organic farmers, with 1.15 million organic farmers in India alone. During the mid-1970s food crisis, India employed the use of chemical-intensive farming and became extensively dependent on it. Farmers found it difficult to keep up with the increased cost of fertilizers and pesticides to maintain consistent crop yield. Conventional farming methods stripped India’s soil of nutrients (organic matter) and decreased soil porosity, or the ability to hold moisture. Low soil porosity exacerbated drought conditions and decreased India’s annual crop growth from 3.7% to 0.2% in 2013-2014.

Organic and natural farming practices (crop cover, no-till, over-seeding, etc.) presented a new opportunity to mitigate poor crop performance, as India was able to increase its total organic farmland by 64% in less than a decade. Now, the country is the main supplier of organic products to developed nations, including 47% of the world’s organic cotton production. As Beyond Pesticides wrote, in 2016, “Claims that organic agriculture cannot feed the world because of lower yields are contested by scientific studies showing that organic yields are comparable to conventional yields and require significantly lower inputs. Therefore, organic agriculture is not only necessary in order to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals; it is necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of food production, the environment, and the economy.”

Organic agriculture presents a solution to the myriad of issues caused by chemical-intensive farming practices. Agricultural chemicals used in conventional farming practices weaken both insect and animal species abundance and biodiversity. Chemicals used in pest management, such as glyphosate (herbicide) and neonicotinoids (insecticide), can harm soil communities – lowering soil fertility, and the provincial organisms.

Organic farming practices promote a natural resistance to human foodborne pathogens by increasing the biodiversity and population of an insect species and microbes that decompose and remove potential pathogens. Further, organic livestock farming has been found to significantly improve bird abundance, especially insectivorous birds, and long-distance migratory birds. Dr. Reganold recognizes the benefit of organic agriculture, and how it will be necessary for global sustainability, “Hundreds of scientific studies now show that organic agriculture can produce sufficient yields, is profitable for farmers, protects and improves the environment, and is safer for farm-workers.”

Increased global participation in organic agriculture can protect human and animal health, promote biodiversity, improve the global socioeconomic status, and eliminate the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture. Everyone plays a key role in promoting a sustainable future through organic practices. A common misconception is that organic products are “too expensive,” but low-cost organic products exist in the marketplace. Education about organic agriculture, buying organic products (food and non-food items), growing your own organic produce, creating marketplace demand, and advocating for organic regulations in the marketplace can aid in the global transition to organic agriculture.  

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

Source: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) press release

UPDATE: The same day Beyond Pesticides published this piece, Gulbrandsen Chemicals announced it would drop its effort to produce pentachlorophenol in Orangeburg, SC, according to The State newspaper.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 10, 2020) Orangeburg, South Carolina may be the last place in the world to produce one of the most toxic pesticides known to humanity, pentachlorphenol. Despite a global ban on “penta” in 2016, in force in 186 countries, the United States has continued to import and use this hazardous wood preservative on telephone poles and railroad ties throughout the country. Now, with Mexico set to close one of the last production plants in the world, Gulbrandsen Chemicals Inc. wants to make Orangeburg, a majority black community with a population three times the U.S. poverty rate, the new epicenter for penta manufacturing.

Overview and History

Penta is used to pressure treat wood, with the aim of prolonging its use in utility poles and railroad ties. Beyond Pesticides has sounded the alarm on penta and other wood preservatives for over 20 years, starting with the reports Pole Pollution and Poison Poles, which outlined the science on the hazards and and alternatives to preservative-coated utility poles. Penta is a particularly concerning wood preservative, as it is well known to be contaminated with hexachlorobenzene, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and furans. Acute contact exposure through contact or inhalation with penta-treated products can result in severe irritation. Chronic risks include damage to organ systems like the liver and kidney, as well as impacts on immune, nervous, and endocrine system functioning. EPA reviews previous classified penta as a probable carcinogen, however its Integrated Risk Information System recently classified it as “likely to be carcinogenic.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that at least 1 in 1,000 workers are likely to develop cancer during their career at a penta production plant.

Regulation of penta began in the late 1970s, when EPA identified extraordinarily high risks to human health. Penta, along with other wood preservatives, were subject to a Special Review, during which EPA considers product efficacy data (not considered during a standard registration review, which assumes product benefits), but do not adequately consider the availability of nontoxic alternatives. As a result of sustained industry pressure on the agency, EPA soft-pedaled its review to focus on “risk-reduction measures,” rather than meaningful regulations. It ultimately removed residential uses, such as treated lumber, but allowed widespread community exposure through treated utility poles and railroad ties. However, curtailed uses and personal protective equipment requirements does not adequately address significant levels of dioxin contamination. Instead of imposing strict limits of one part per million, EPA in the late 1980s negotiated with the chemical’s manufacturers to permit a phase down to two parts per million over several years. Despite decades of time to improve production processes, current EPA documents show hexachlorobenzene and dioxin remain at hazardous levels of contamination in penta treated wood (19.3ppm and .55ppm average in 2013).

Beyond Pesticides sued EPA in the early 2000s over its inaction on penta, urging the agency to cancel and suspend the registrations of all toxic wood preservatives on the market. Although the suit received a preliminary injunction, it was ultimately struck down by a District Court judge based on administrative issues, not the merits of the case. Since then, EPA has continued to skirt responsibility to address this highly hazardous chemical. In one notable instance, penta review documents from EPA calculated a 2.2 in 10,000 cancer risk to children playing around treated poles. This rate was 200 times above EPA’s acceptable cancer threshold. But rather than protect children, EPA simply removed the exposure scenario for children and echoed a claim by the Penta Council, an industry group, that “play activities with or around pole structures would not normally occur.”

Stockholm Ban

While EPA continues to drag its feet, an international treaty, called the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, was brought into force. Parties to the Stockholm Convention are bound to eliminate the use and production of hazardous chemicals voted on by member countries. The U.S. is glaringly absent from this treaty, signing it in 2001, yet never ratifying it through the Senate. According to the U.S. State Department, “The United States participates as an observer in the meetings of the parties and in technical working groups.” Indeed, despite not signing the treaty, the U.S. was intimately involved in opposing a proposed ban on penta when discussions began at a United Nations committee in 2014.

Despite opposition from the U.S. and India, which is a minor producer of the chemical, the Stockholm Convention voted to impose the strictest ban possible on penta, beginning in 2016.  This set a clock ticking on the last North American penta plant, located in Matamoros, Mexico. Mexico was granted a five year exemption from the treaty in order to provide time to shift production. With 2021 fast approaching, the plant’s owner, Cabot Microelectronics, announced it would stop manufacturing the chemical in order to comply with the Stockholm Convention. Around the same time, Gulbrandsen Chemicals Inc., a company that lists its headquarters in South Carolina, but appears to have ties to India, announced it would bring a production plant to Orangeburg.

Orangeburg’s Future

The U.S. has long been the largest consumer of penta, and as a result has an intimate history with the the chemical’s manufacturing process. Hundreds of Superfund sites throughout the country are designated as such because they were the location of previous penta production plants. According to research Beyond Pesticides conducted in Pole Pollution in the late 1990s, roughly 250 sites on the Superfund National Priorities list were contaminated with penta.

An article in South Carolina’s The State newspaper, laying out information on the history and hazards with penta, brought about a swift response from some South Carolina’s lawmakers. Shortly after the article published, State Representatives Russell Ott and Gilda Cobb Hunter introduced a joint resolution to place a moratorium on the production of penta in the state. “It gives us time to get a better understanding of what this is,’’ said Representative Ott, a lawmaker whose district intersects with Orangeburg, to The State. He continued, “Clearly it has been banned in over 150 countries. We want to give everybody an opportunity to have their say, but in the meantime, this places a moratorium on the production.’’

Local politicians are concerned that the chemical could disproportionately affect the community’s poorest residents. “I certainly am not interested in Orangeburg County being the home of manufacturing a chemical that has the kind of detrimental effects I’ve read about,’’ said Representative Cobb-Hunter, whose district lies in planned production site. Reports indicate the site would be close to a retirement community and an assisted living facility.

When asked for comment, Beyond Pesticides emphasized that a delay was not enough. “It’s encouraging to see state lawmakers step in to delay the opening of a new penta plant in South Carolina, but the fact is, it never should have been considered in the first place,’’ the organization said in a statement to The State. “Pentachlorophenol production in South Carolina would harm workers, poison the surrounding environment, and set Orangeburg up as a future Superfund site. The rest of the world has already moved towards alternatives.’’

Steel, concrete, and composite alternatives to hazardous wood preservatives yield a lifespan of 80 to 100 years. Borates have been an effective alternative as well. When considering alternatives, it’s important to understand the differences in maintenance costs associated with different materials. Wood preservatives are likely to require re-treatment, which some utilities perform on a set cycle, while steel, concrete and fiberglass do not. In addition, disposal costs for chemicals used in wood treatment are high and continue to grow, while steel can be recycled. Communities may also choose to bury their utility lines if conditions are appropriate.

Penta has no place in the 21^st century and it is abhorrent for the United States to continue to embrace the use of this hazardous, highly contaminated wood preservative. Residents in South Carolina can track the progress of the temporary penta ban through this link and are encouraged to write their lawmakers to support and strengthen this ban into permanence. For more information on the toxicity and history of penta, see Beyond Pesticides’ Wood Preservative program page.

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

Source: The State (1, 2)

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2020) It’s time to think about gardening! Whether you’re growing vegetables to eat or flowers for pollinators, you’ll want to be sure that your seeds and plants are free from harmful pesticides. Seeds and plants in many garden centers across the country are grown from seeds coated with toxic fungicides and bee-harming neonicotinoid pesticides, or drenched with them.

Plant organic seeds and plants!

As bees suffer serious declines in their populations, we urge people and communities to plant habitat that supports pollinator populations, and have provided information to facilitate this in our BEE Protective Habitat Guide. However, plants are too often grown with hazardous pesticides that either harm pollinators in their cultivation or threaten bees as they pollinate or forage on treated plants. For more information on the dangers of neonicotinoid coated seeds, see Beyond Pesticides’ short video Seeds That Poison.

Beyond Pesticides has compiled a directory of companies and organizations that sell organic seeds and plants to the general public. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs, as well as living plants and seedlings. Specific questions on each seller’s seeds can be directed to their customer service line. You can also download a handy bi-fold brochure version of this directory that you can print and take with you. If you know of a company that is not on this list, please let us know by sending an email to [email protected].

Although many seed companies indicate that they sell untreated seeds, Beyond Pesticides encourages you to look for organic seeds. While untreated seeds surely are a step in the right direction, they do not ensure that the seed production practices are protective of bees or that residual chemicals do not contaminate the plant.

Send a message to your Governor to encourage your state to plant organic seeds and plants in public places.

Letter to Governor:

 With honey bee and wild pollinator populations in decline, planting for pollinators has become a popular way to enhance pollinator habitat and the appearance of parks and roadsides. However, plants are too often grown with hazardous pesticides that either harm pollinators in their cultivation or threaten bees as they pollinate or forage on treated plants.

Beyond Pesticides has compiled a directory of companies and organizations (bp-dc.org/organicseeds) that sell organic seeds and plants to the general public. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs, as well as living plants and seedlings. Specific questions on each seller’s seeds can be directed to their customer service line.

A recent paper titled “Declines in insect abundance and diversity: We know enough to act now,” provides a run-down of additional actions to take, including these actions at the local and state level:

*Strengthen pesticide regulations and ban cosmetic use.

*Retail companies should have clear labels to warn about the impact on nontarget insects.

*Sub-national policy to protect insects should be pushed before national or international agreements are achieved.

*Strong incentives to protect, enhance, and restore habitat.

*Proper funding for conservation and management of land.

*Begin conservation efforts before species are on the brink of extinction.

*Mitigate and sequester carbon emissions; promote clean energy.

*Increase habitat connectivity.

I urge you to ensure that our state is implementing a pollinator protection plan that uses organic seeds and addresses these additional essential steps.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2020) Scientists from Imperial College London have just published their recent research on impacts of pesticides on larval bumblebees exposed through neonicotinoid-contaminated food sources. Many studies have looked at the devastating impacts of pesticides on adult insects, including pollinators — and bees, in particular. This research, however, examines how exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, through consumption of contaminated nectar and pollen during the larval stage, affects bumblebees (Bombus terrestris audax). It finds that these exposures cause abnormal brain growth in some parts of the bees’ brains, and significantly impairs learning ability compared to bees who were not exposed. Advocates maintain that neonicotinoid pesticides should be banned for their widespread and severe damage to insects and the environment broadly, in addition to human health concerns.

Neonicotinoids (neonics) comprise a class of pesticide used intensively in many parts of the world. They may be applied to plant foliage, or directly to soils as a drench, but the predominant use is for seed treatment. These pesticides are banned or restricted in some places, including in the European Union, France, Germany, and Italy; some states have also worked to rein in their use.

Previous research out of Harvard University has documented the neurotoxic impacts of neonicotinoids on adult bumblebee behaviors. The subject study looked to learn more about the risks of pesticide exposure on bee broods, after the bees emerge into adulthood, from the entry (into the colony) and consumption of food contaminated with a neonic — an area of investigation that has received scant attention. The researchers note, in the introduction to their study paper, that “no study to date has investigated how pesticide exposure during early-stage development affects brain developmental plasticity and its association with behavioural performance in older adulthood.”

Neonics can easily end up in bee food sources because of their preponderant agricultural uses. Once applied, they move through a plant’s vascular (circulatory) system, and show up in the plant’s pollen, nectar, and “guttation droplets” — the “sappy” exudate on leaf edges or tips. (Guttation happen when root pressure is high and transpiration is low. It often occurs at night, and when soil and/or air moisture levels are high.)

Foraging bees pick up pollen and nectar in their travels, and bring them back to their colonies to feed bee larvae and baby bees (aka “brood”). They also feed the honey they produce (by chewing pollen and mixing it with saliva) to the colony’s developing brood. All of these can be sources of pesticide contamination from pesticide-treated flowering plants. To make matters worse, research has shown that some bees actually prefer food sources that contain neonicotinoid pesticides, and may show “possible symptoms of addiction” to them.

Further, bee larvae have been shown to be vulnerable not only to a single pesticide, but also, to synergistic effects of the plethora of pesticides that may end up in the colony’s hive, plus the so-called “inert” ingredients in pesticide compounds. Researchers in one study noted, “One hundred and twenty-one different pesticides and metabolites were identified in the hive with an average of seven pesticides per pollen sample, including miticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and insect growth regulators.”

The study experiment provided imidacloprid-treated food at different developmental stages in order to examine the effects on worker bees during their brood development stage, early-adult stage, or both stages. The researchers tested the bees’ ability to learn to associate a smell with a food reward, with 10 trials per bee. Using micro-CT (computed tomography) imaging, the scientists looked at brain development across three groups: (1) those provided with a nectar substitute that contained neonicotinoids, (2) those who were fed no pesticides, and (3) those who were fed pesticides only after their emergence as adults.

The brains of nearly 100 bees were examined, and the team found that an important part of the bee brain involved with learning — the mushroom body — was smaller in those exposed to the neonics. Smaller mushroom body volume is correlated with poorer performance in learning tasks. Bees fed with contaminated food in the larval stage show significantly impaired learning ability compared to those that are not.

The researchers found that “bees exposed to pesticides during larval development, but not as adults, showed similar learning impairment and mushroom body volume reduction when tested at both three and 12 days as an adult. This suggests that at least within the unexposed nine days they were adults, the effects of larval exposure could not be overcome, pointing to a potentially permanent effect.” The study paper comments that “these findings highlight that the first 72 hours of adulthood must be important in behavioural development, but also represents a susceptible developmental window to insecticide exposure, showing the importance of considering different life-stages when assessing pesticide risk.”

Lead study author Dylan Smith, PhD of the Imperial College Department of Life Sciences, pointed to some additional implications of these results: “There has been growing evidence that pesticides can build up inside bee colonies. Our study reveals the risks to individuals being reared in such an environment, and that a colony’s future workforce can be affected weeks after they are first exposed. . . . Bees’ direct exposure to pesticides through residues on flowers should not be the only consideration when determining potential harm to the colony. The amount of pesticide residue present inside colonies following exposure appears to be an important measure for assessing the impact on a colony’s health in the future.”

Phys.org reports the comments of head researcher Richard Gill, PhD, from the Imperial College London Department of Life Sciences: “‘Bee colonies act as superorganisms, so when any toxins enter the colony, these have the potential to cause problems with the development of the baby bees within it. . . . Worryingly in this case, when young bees are fed on pesticide-contaminated food, this caused parts of the brain to grow less, leading to older adult bees possessing smaller and functionally impaired brains; an effect that appeared to be permanent and irreversible. . . . These findings reveal how colonies can be impacted by pesticides weeks after exposure, as their young grow into adults that may not be able to forage for food properly. Our work highlights the need for guidelines on pesticide usage to consider this route of exposure.”

Given the economic and food system importance of pollinators, government and the public sector must act — and quickly — to arrest their decline, to which pesticides are a major contributor. Beyond Pesticides is a resource for activists pushing to end pesticide use and adopt least-toxic, organic and regenerative agricultural and other land management practices. Learn more about the role of pesticides in pollinator decline at the Beyond Pesticides website page, What the Science Shows. See the BEE Protective page for information on protecting bees and wild pollinators from the ravages of pesticides. Join the movement to end destructive pesticide use by engaging with elected officials at the local, state and federal levels, and supporting local efforts to shift to organic practices.

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

Sources: https://phys.org/news/2020-03-pesticides-impair-baby-bee-brain.html and https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.2442

Experimental ponds in Gault Nature Reserve. Photo credit: Vincent Fugère

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2020) A new study conducted by researchers at McGill University investigated phytoplankton (microscopic algae) response and resilience to Roundup exposure. “Community rescue in experimental phytoplankton communities facing severe herbicide pollution” was published in Nature Ecology & Evolution. Researchers found that algae can develop resistance to contamination, but surviving phytoplankton communities are much less diverse. Diversity loss is cause for concern as it could hinder adaptation to other potential stressors, such as climate change. 

Using experimental ponds, researchers first exposed some phytoplankton communities to low levels of Roundup over time, then dosed the ponds with a lethal amount.  Groups that had been given low doses survived the lethal phase whereas unpolluted, control ponds did not. Researchers observed “community rescue,” where genetic changes avert population collapse in a lethal environment. In fact, glyphosate eventually became a fertilizer in resistant ponds as it is a significant source of phosphorus. Other studies, too, have noted that phosphorous loading is an overlooked impact of glyphosate contamination.

Phytoplankton matter because their disruption can cause a trophic cascade and impact other organisms. “These tiny species at the bottom of the food chain play an important role in the balance of a lake’s ecosystem and are a key source of food for microscopic animals,” says researcher and author Vincent Fugère, Ph.D., “Our experiments allow us to observe, in real time, how algae can acquire resistance to glyphosate in freshwater ecosystems.”

The resulting damage to genetic diversity causes concern. Andrew Gonzalez, Ph.D., says, “We observed significant loss of biodiversity in communities contaminated with glyphosate. This could have a profound impact on the proper functioning of ecosystems and lower the chance that they can adapt to new pollutants or stressors. This is particularly concerning as many ecosystems are grappling with the increasing threat of pollution and climate change.”

Glyphosate contamination is troubling for both environmental and human health impacts. While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gives glyphosate the greenlight, Bayer, its major manufacturer, is mired in class-action cancer lawsuits, and currently in settlement talks rumored to reach over $10 billion. Its pervasive use and biocidal effects also links the chemical to broader health issues, such as antibiotic resistance.

As we face global threats exacerbated by toxic pesticide use — such as the sixth mass extinction, antibiotic resistance, and other public health crises — advocates say it is high time to abandon the toxic chemical treadmill and opt instead for practices that build biodiversity rather than destroy it. Organic agriculture saves local waterways from deadly contamination and offers a whole host of benefits such as climate resilience, economic security, and health equity. Help drive demand for this transition by purchasing organic whenever possible. Read more about the benefits of organic agriculture on Beyond Pesticides’ Why Organic program page.

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

Source: McGill, Nature Ecology and Evolution

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2020) California produces the most food of any state in the U.S. – more than half of all domestic fruits and vegetables – but only 4% of its agriculture is organic. After releasing a report on the benefits of organic agriculture last year, the California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) Foundation is continuing to offer a “Roadmap to an Organic California” with an extensive policy report. The document proposes a wealth of concrete strategies for California lawmakers to employ. Organic agriculture, the authors skillfully reason, can respond to three pressing issues in California: climate resilience, economic security, and health equity. Additionally, the report highlights the need for focus on organic integrity in order to sustain positive change away from toxic practices.

Climate Resilience

The climate crisis is already impacting California; heat waves, droughts, and devastating wildfires are occurring more frequently and severely. Organic agriculture is often forgotten as politicians consider solutions. CCOF proposes that policy makers help combat the climate crisis through supporting healthy, carbon-sequestering soil practices that are federally mandated in organic agriculture.

In addition to building farm resilience, healthy soil secures some of the state’s water supply. Because it is porous and sponge-like, well-maintained soil stores water. In a dry climate like California, the fact that organic crops have yields up to 40% higher than chemical-intensive during years of drought highlights the importance of organic agriculture as climate changes. Noting this value, there is a distinct need for increased research and technical assistance in organic practices.

With increasing financial hardships in farming and the high value of property in California driving sales, the state needs to make governmental efforts to help conserve farmland. “An acre of urban land,” the report emphasizes, “emits 70 times more greenhouse gases than an acre of farmland.”

                How to realize organic’s full potential:

• Integrate organic into California’s climate strategy.
• Invest in popular water efficiency programs.
• Invest in organic research and technical assistance.
• Conserve California’s farmland.

Economic Security

While California represents an enormous economy, the state struggles with exceptionally high poverty rates and food insecurity. “Low-income people in California are more likely to live in polluted environments, lack access to healthy foods, experience worse health outcomes, and have fewer job opportunities,” the report states. However, it contends, “Organic is an economic solution.”

A 2018 study in Renewable Agriculture and Food found that organic “hot spots” – areas where organic agriculture is clustered – are related to poverty rates that are 1.6% lower than average. Median household incomes in these hot spots are also higher, by $1,600. “Organic agriculture is a proven economic stimulus that strengthens communities,” says the CCOF report. The rising demand for organic produce and the fact that 39% of organic farms make direct sales in their locality (compared to only 5.5% of conventional) relates to more money circulating and being reinvested within local economies. An improved local economy creates jobs and opportunity for growth. As such, the report notes, there is a particular need to invest in farmworker rights – a frontline community that has been impacted by recent immigration policy. Labor shortages have led to crops rotting in the field because there are no workers to harvest them.

                How to realize organic’s full potential:

• Foster a strong organic market.
• Invest in farmworkers.
• Integrate organic into economic development planning.
• Support organic farmers to comply with regulations and maintain viability.

Health Equity

Low-income families and people of color disproportionately lack access to healthy environments and healthy foods. In California, child exposure to environmental hazards has been estimated to cost $254 million each year. Nationwide, the lack of investment in healthy foods costs $160 billion in health care expenses. These negative health outcomes are inequitable and avoidable.

Organic agriculture creates healthy, pesticide-free environments and more nutritious food than chemical-intensive agriculture. It avoids water contamination and does not poison farmworkers or their children.

                How to realize organic’s full potential:

• Expand organic to all communities
• Support children’s health with organic food and farming
• Promote organic food as medicine

Organic Integrity

The question of organic integrity is foundational to organic growth and the public health, environmental, and agricultural benefits to be derived from its expansion and the transformation of mainstream agriculture, now dependent on chemical inputs and genetically modified organisms. It is this question of organic integrity, and the specifics that drive consumer trust in the USDA organic label, that advocates point to as threatening the future of the organic solution to the climate crisis. CCOF, by many accounts, has been identified as the first certification agency to certify hydroponic (soil-less plant production) as organic and then later affirmed by the National Organic Program. CCOF, advocates say, has been complicit as USDA violated the sunset process established as a foundational standard in the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) process for reviewing allowed synthetic substances in organic production. That process required that, on a five-year cycle, synthetics in organic be subject to a re-listing process (requiring the same supermajority vote that is required to initially place a synthetic on the National List of Allowed Substances) that scrutinized the science on adverse effects and the essentiality of the material, in light of new production practices and substances. While the report highlights how critical the integrity of the organic label is to the success of the organic movement and all it has to offer, it ignores this reality that is undermining organic integrity, according to advocates—missing the importance of unifying the interests of family farmers, consumers, and environmentalists. Nevertheless, the report suggests that lawmakers: 1) Fund the National Organic Program (NOP) and enforce strong organic standards, 2) Clarify organic standards around hydroponics and container-based systems, and 3) Develop a guidance document to bolster the soil fertility standard (how to maintain or improve natural resources and soil health).

Beyond Pesticides is a strong advocate for organic expansion through organic integrity (see: Keeping Organic Strong) and opposes the organic labeling of hydroponic production because it does not incorporate the foundation element an organic production system—soil. If organic agriculture is to be a solution to the climate crisis, carbon-sequestering soil is critical.

California has a chance to lead the nation in responding to the critical issues laid out by CCOF in this policy report. Beyond Pesticides supports advocates and groups heading up this work on the West Coast. You can join our national and local initiatives by signing up for our Action of the Week and Weekly News Update. For more on organic integrity, keep abreast with our new program, OrganicEye.

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

Source: CCOF

(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2020) Pregnant mothers living in areas where carcinogenic pesticides have been used are at increased risk of their child developing an acute form of leukemia, according to research published last month in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles. The findings are based on a review of pesticide use data in rural, agricultural areas of California, where many minority, low-income and farmworking communities live. Under current laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits the use of cancer-causing pesticides with an expectation that a certain number of cancers (anywhere from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 1,000,000, based on the pesticide in question) should be considered ‘acceptable risk.’

While past studies have shown similar connections between pesticide exposure in the womb and the development of childhood cancer, this is one of the first to utilize geographic information systems (GIS) data, rather than parental interviews on past exposures. Researchers used California public records of cancer incidence from 1998-2011, alongside statewide pesticide use reports (California is the only state to make this information publicly accessible and searchable). A list of 65 pesticides were investigated for their specific connection between use and the development of childhood cancer.

A statistical analysis conducted by researchers found that use of any carcinogenic pesticides within 4,000m (~2.5 miles) during a mother’s pregnancy increases the odds of the child developing acute lymphoblastic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia nearly two-fold and three-fold, respectively. Urea-based herbicides, such as diuron and linuron, are found to be particularly troubling, substantially increasing the risk of childhood cancer.

Scientists also considered the cancer connection for several pesticides not considered carcinogenic by EPA, but widely used in California. Among those, glyphosate and and paraquat dichloride were both found to increase the risk of leukemia.

Previous studies by this team of researchers, using a similar GIS-based investigation, found that ambient exposure to agricultural pesticides increased the risk of a child developing autism spectrum disorder, a finding that is also backed up by a 2014 study from the University of California, Davis. These findings also confirm epidemiologic study findings of increased risk of childhood leukemia for women who reported pesticide use during pregnancy.  A 2015 study conducted in the Midwest, and focused on farming communities, finds that crop density in a particular community is associated with the risk of childhood cancer.

With growing awareness that EPA permits carcinogenic pesticides to be sprayed in our communities and on our food, more and more individuals are choosing to go organic. Long-term research finds organic practices return higher yields than chemical farming, and do not use the same highly toxic pesticides as their conventional counterparts. Because organic farms are also likely to sell their produce locally, studies find they are a boon for local economies. In order to stop the rampant poisoning of rural communities, we need to increase the number of organic farms. Help drive demand for this transition by purchasing organic whenever possible. Read more about the benefits of organic agriculture on Beyond Pesticides’ Why Organic program page.

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

Source: International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2020) Deadline today! Tell EPA to Ban Atrazine; Protect Children and Frogs from this Endocrine Disrupting Pesticide.

Atrazine, the second most-used herbicide in the U.S., is an insidious poison. Atrazine is known for producing developmental abnormalities in frogs.

It also affects the endocrine system and reproductive biology of humans. In addition to its agricultural uses on corn, sorghum, and sugar cane, atrazine is also used on home lawns, school grounds, and parks, where exposure to children is common. Nontoxic alternatives are available for all of these uses.

Act today, March 2. Sign the petition demanding that EPA ban atrazine and its cousins simazine and propazine. Act today!

Beyond Pesticides will submit comments: Docket: EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0750 (FRL-10002-92)

Petition to EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs:

We have serious concerns with the proposed interim decisions on reregistration of three triazine pesticides: atrazine, simazine, and propazine. These triazines are highly mobile and persistent in the environment and have been linked to numerous adverse health and environmental effects which have motivated numerous public interest campaigns to ban their use in the U.S. as well as in Europe. The Draft Ecological Risk Assessments for the Registration Review of Atrazine, Simazine, and Propazine dated October 5, 2016  found high risks that were supported by EPA’s assessments.

EPA’s Proposed Interim Decisions present data demonstrating unreasonable adverse effects. These hazards are unacceptable, especially in light of the availability of nontoxic alternatives. The hazards include:

*The technical mechanism of toxicity is perturbation of the neuroendocrine system by disrupting hypothalamic regulation of the pituitary, leading primarily to a disturbance in the ovulatory surge of luteinizing hormone (LH) which results in both reproductive and developmental alterations. Of the numerous adverse effects associated with this disruption, the two that appear to be the most sensitive and occur after the shortest duration (4 days) of exposure are the disruption of the ovarian cycles and the delays in puberty onset.

*Despite these endocrine disrupting effects, EPA reduces the margin of safety and underestimates exposure to children.

*EPA states, “Based on the results from hundreds of toxicity studies on the effects of atrazine on plants and animals, over 20 years of surface water monitoring data, and higher tier aquatic exposure models, this risk assessment concludes that aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is potential chronic risk to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates in these same locations.”

*In spite of these findings, EPA will increase the level of atrazine allowed in waterways.

Please adhere to the statutory mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and suspend the registration of these pesticides that pose unreasonable adverse health and environmental effects.

Act today, Monday, March 2. Sign the petition demanding that EPA ban atrazine and its cousins simazine and propazine.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2020) State legislators in Boise, Idaho have advanced House Bill 487, An Act Relating to Pesticides and Chemigation, out of the House Agricultural Affairs Committee. If passed, the statutory alterations in this bill would, according to the Idaho Statesman, loosen some rules on aerial application by crop-dusting airplanes, and reduce state agricultural investigators’ ability to regulate the spraying of pesticides. The legislation replaces sections of current rules and deletes language regarding drift, including “Chemicals shall not be applied when wind speed favors drift beyond the area intended for treatment or when chemical distribution is adversely affected.”

Such changes will exacerbate the already-significant issue of pesticide drift. In an overview of the pesticide dicamba, Beyond Pesticides recently reported on this legislative development, as well as on a precipitating exposure event in an Idaho hops field. Banning of aerial spraying, as has been attempted by some localities, would go a long way toward eliminating the harms of pesticide drift. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is the following: As the problem of drift grows and farmers’ crops and people are put at risk, this legislation attempts to define away serious problems and eliminate protections.

The Idaho legislation would appear to be on a fast track to approval: the bill moved very quickly out of the House Agricultural Affairs Committee (AAC) after testimony, mostly from the Idaho Agricultural Aviation Association. It will now go to the full House for consideration — despite grave warnings from the Idaho Attorney General’s Office that the legislation would constrain state enforcement of federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pesticide regulations. Representatives and AAC members Sally Toone and Ryan Kerby requested that the bill be held in committee longer to give members time to read and consider the AG’s nine-page analysis, and to hear further testimony. The Idaho Statesman reports: “It’s unclear whether lawmakers read the full report on the bill. . . . Instead, the committee voted to advance the bill without further testimony, sending it to the House floor.“

Back in 2004, Beyond Pesticides published a “primer” on the phenomenon of pesticide drift that laid out the variety and scale of potential impacts. Drift negatively affects the health of farmworkers and the nearby public (especially children), as well as pollinators, non-target crops, plants, and organisms, and wildlife. Pesticides applied by spraying through the air — whether from an airplane, a drone, a backpack unit, or a truck — are all subject to some degree of drift. Spraying from aircraft presents the most extreme case: up to 40% of the pesticide volume can be lost to drift. Dicamba, alone or in combination with other compounds, is especially prone to it; as reported in February, “It simply does not stay put, no matter how it is applied, but becomes airborne and travels.” Such travel can result in several miles of displacement from the target sites.

The precipitating event in Idaho, in May 2019, was this: a couple of dozen workers in a Canyon County hops field were unexpectedly showered with an aerially delivered fungicide that was meant for a nearby onion field. Beyond Pesticides wrote, “On the heels of this incident, the state agriculture department wrote a letter to the [responsible] crop dusting company, admonishing that — although they were technically not violating application rules — the pilot should have waited to give the farmworkers a chance to vacate the field before unloading the fungicide.” A few months later, a crop dusting association complained to lawmakers that the letter — no fines, no license suspensions or other constraints were involved — amounted to “excessive oversight and regulation.” Soon thereafter, rather than tighten protections for workers and the public through the state’s regulation of pesticide spraying, as public health advocates urged, the legislature chose to create HB487, which would appear to appease agrochemical interests in the state.

Among the bill’s features is the elimination of the terms “faulty” and “careless” from a provision of the state code that says aerial pesticide applicators should not spray in a “faulty, careless, or negligent” manner. In response to one of Rep. Toone’s questions, Deputy Attorney General Katy DeVries wrote that the removal of those terms might expand protections for anyone accused of misuse of pesticides. She added, “The situation could arise where members of the public either ignore or are otherwise unaware of posted pesticide spray notices. Members of the public (i.e., joggers, farmworkers, children) may be present in a spray area. Applicators may still choose to proceed with a spray operation even with people present near the spray area. This action may not necessarily be negligent, but it may fit into the realm of faulty or careless if the application results in human exposure.”

The current statute allows the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to discipline crop-dusting pilots who apply pesticides in a “faulty” or “careless” way, even if the behavior does not meet the higher bar of “negligent.” HB487 would eliminate that latitude. Ms. DeVries noted that the AAC, just weeks ago, struck down several existing rules that regulate aerial pesticide application — rules barring pilots from flying at low altitude over towns, schools, hospitals, or “densely populated areas” without written agreements; flying low over occupied structures without prior notification; spraying pesticides under certain conditions related to wind speed and directions; and the banning of any spraying near designated “hazard areas.” HB487, Ms. DeVries asserted, would further constrain or eliminate the Department of Agriculture’s enforcement authority.

No one from the State Department of Agriculture attended the AAC hearing; the department did submit a bill analysis to the committee outlining the agency’s responsibility to enforce laws regulating pesticide use through a cooperating agreement with the EPA. That document also noted that “State agriculture officials have taken 17 enforcement actions — warning letters, regulatory letters, violations notices or consent agreements — against pesticide applicators in the past five years. . . . Not all resulted in fines or license suspensions. . . . The ISDA [Idaho State Department of Agriculture] has the responsibility to ensure that the use of pesticides will not cause unreasonable adverse effect to human health or the environment.”

At the hearing, approximately 15 people related to the crop-dusting industry testified in support of the bill; exactly one person — Jonathan Oppenheimer of the Idaho Conservation League — testified in opposition. Mr. Oppenheimer “cautioned the committee to consider whether the law was really being inappropriately enforced, noting that the Idaho Attorney General’s Office found the state had issued only one violation notice under one of the sections the Idaho Agricultural Aviation Association wanted lawmakers to remove.”

Those aligned with the crop dusting companies asserted that state agriculture investigators have excessive latitude in assessing violations and fines, and that accused crop-duster pilots have little recourse to appeal such actions. The testimony of two pilots stood out as particularly creative: they claimed that “the stress of adhering to complicated regulations could distract pilots and endanger their lives while flying. ‘It’s a good recipe to get dead,’ said one of the men.” The crop dusting constituency had a vocal supporter in State Representative Gary Marshall, who expressed his displeasure at the mild slap state agriculture officials delivered to the company after the exposure incident in the hops field: “What you’ve described is the very essence of tyrannical government. I can hear James Madison very loudly in my mind. This is the very essence of tyranny.” As the Idaho Statesman coverage of this hearing said, “Lawmakers seemed eager to assist the crop-duster association members.”

Marielena Vega, of the Idaho Organization of Resource Councils, has expressed concern that the bill’s changes will “unreasonably limit” the ability of the state to deal with incidents such as the Canyon County hops field incident. She said, “By eliminating ‘faulty’ and ‘careless,’ this legislation makes it more difficult to prove an individual or company misused pesticides. Striking these from the statute would expose workers and the public to greater harm because there are greater legal hurdles to demonstrate negligence.”

Ms. Vega is rightly concerned about HB487. Farmworkers, who labor under very demanding conditions, are very often exposed to pesticides and other chemicals in the course of their work — never mind the other stresses they endure, such as low wages, hard physical labor, injuries, long hours, all manner of weather conditions, and increasingly, threats from U.S. immigration officials. Indeed, the average life expectancy of farmworkers is 39 years, as compared with 78 for the general U.S. population. Beyond Pesticides monitors and evaluates developments in, and advocates for, agricultural justice for those who work to put food on the tables of Americans.

Pesticide drift is among the risks farmworkers, and members of the public, face in nearly any agricultural area. Lawmakers and government agencies at both the state and federal levels ought to be working to protect people from the harms of pesticide use generally, and aerial spraying in particular, given the “reach” of such applications to areas far beyond the intended targets. When lawmakers and agencies fail to protect, the onus is necessarily on the public and civic organizations to insist that they do.

That can be a challenging task, as residents of Lincoln County, Oregon learned when they secured a hard-won local ban on aerial spraying, only to have a circuit court judge strike down the ban on the basis of state pre-emption. (Read more about that case here and here.) Certainly, as in this Idaho case, lawmakers’ prioritizing the ability of crop dusters to deliver their chemical loads over the health of those on the ground, is a particular affront to both common sense and legislative responsibility to constituents.

Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as the solution that protects farmworkers, public health, ecosystems, and natural resources — water, air, and soil — on which all human activity depends. The public can become informed on these issues, and mobilize its influence, with state and local elected officials, and through engagement with and support of non-governmental and civic organizations (such as Beyond Pesticides) that advocate for laws and policies that reduce the risk of pesticide use. One great way to do both of those is to join Beyond Pesticides!

Take Action: Residents of Idaho are encouraged to contact their elected officials. Contact your Idaho state legislator: Click here.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article240597081.html

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2020) A new report finds that as birds and pollinators continue to decline, and chronic diseases remain on the rise, the global agrichemical industry is raking in billions of dollars from hazardous pesticides that contribute to these crises. A joint investigation from Unearthed and Public Eye finds that 35% of pesticide sales from the largest agrichemical corporations are made from the most toxic pesticides on the market.

Pesticide production was a $57.6 billion market in 2018, according to the report. While the profits of the industry are privatized, the public health and environmental effects are broad. Studies conducted over the last decade show that the impacts of hazardous pesticide use dwarf the market for these chemicals.

The impact of pesticides on public health results in a drag on the economy. Earlier this year, research from the New York University Grossman School of Medicine found that children’s exposure to organophosphate insecticides was estimated to result in over 26 million lost IQ points and over 110,000 cases of intellectual disability, totaling roughly $735 billion in economic costs each year. A 2019 study from the same scientists determined that endocrine disrupting chemicals, including organophosphates and organochlorine pesticides, were attributable to $340 billion in health care costs annually.

The damage pesticides cause to the natural world also results in significant economic impacts. Pollination alone contributes between $20 and $30 billion in economic value to agriculture each year. A 2016 review, titled The Hidden and External Costs of Pesticide Use, pinned the total environmental costs of pesticide use, including issues like bird and fish kills, loss of pest management by the killing of non-target animals, and pest resistance to pesticides to result in at least $39.5 billion in economic costs annually.

The report from Unearthed and Public Eye finds that the five major chemical companies represented by the trade association Croplife, including BASF, Bayer Crop Science, Corteva Agriscience, FMC, and Syngenta/ChemChina, sold roughly $37 billion worth of pesticides in 2018, comprising 65% of the global market. Of that group, the investigation found that 10% of leading product income from Croplife members came from chemicals considered highly toxic to bees by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Focus of the report centered around the outsized influence Croplife members have on the sale of “highly hazardous” chemicals around the world, as defined by Pesticide Action Network International. In high income developed countries, Croplife companies’ sales of highly hazardous pesticides accounted for 27% of its market share, but in lower income developing countries, hazardous pesticide sales were nearly 50%. This is especially concerning in countries like Brazil, which is home to some of the most biodiverse areas in the world. Since the election of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonoro, pesticide approvals in that country have skyrocketed.

While it is certainly important to restrict use of the most toxic pesticides on the market, what is truly needed is an end to pesticide dependency. The ongoing success of organic agriculture shows that we can transform our farming systems from an economic drain on ecosystem services and public health to one that fosters biodiversity, delivers more nutritious foods, and adds to economic growth.  Under organic, use of a limited list of least-toxic pesticides is allowed only under the conditions determined by a comprehensive organic systems plan.

If you’re concerned about the use of pesticides on Brazilian biodiversity and imported foods, consider joining Beyond Pesticides’ boycott of Brazilian food products. And to hear more about the connection between pesticide use and adverse economic impacts, considering attending Beyond Pesticides National Pesticide Forum, where Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, of the NYU research team will provide a keynote talk on his research.  

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

Source: Unearthed 

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2020) Agriculture both suffers from the impacts of the climate crisis and contributes significantly to global warming. Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine has introduced H.R. 5861 aimed at achieving a 50% reduction in agricultural emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2040, relative to 2010 levels.

Tell Your Congressional Representative to Cosponsor H.R. 5861.

July of 2019 was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high (over 415 ppm) was during the Pliocene period – between 5.3 and 2.6 million years ago. We have seen changing precipitation and temperature patterns, resulting in flooding of some agricultural regions and droughts in others, crops and livestock varieties no longer suited to the geographical area where they have been produced, and new problems with insects, weeds, and disease.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use contributes about 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. At the same time, organic production can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon in the soil.

Regenerative organic agriculture reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. In nonorganic, chemical-intensive agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions result from the use of nitrogen fertilizer, synthetic herbicides and insecticides, fossil fuel consumption associated with farm equipment, and the transportation of materials and products to and from the farm. The manufacture of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is a major source of energy use in chemical-intensive agriculture–the manufacture and use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers alone are responsible for as much as 10 percent of direct global agricultural emissions. This is important because pound-for-pound, nitrous oxide is 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide in warming the planet.

Besides reducing energy use, organic agriculture helps combat climate change by sequestering carbon in the soil. Organic agriculture also produces farms resilient to climate change because high soil organic matter content and mulching help to prevent nutrient and water loss. In addition, organic agriculture increases biodiversity, which is needed to meet the challenges of new insects, diseases, and weeds.

 The best time to have addressed global warming was 20 years ago, but the second-best time is now. Organic, regenerative agricultural practices help mend the earth from the ground up. Rep. Pingree’s Agriculture Resilience Act establishes specific goals and responsibilities in order to “accelerate the ability of agriculture and the food system to first achieve net zero carbon emissions and then go further to be carbon positive by removing additional carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

Tell Your Congressional Representative to Cosponsor H.R. 5861.

Letter to Congress

Agriculture both suffers from the impacts of the climate crisis and contributes significantly to global warming.  I am writing to ask you to cosponsor H.R. 5831, which is aimed at achieving a 50% reduction in agricultural emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2040, relative to 2010 levels.

July of 2019 was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high (over 415 ppm) was during the Pliocene period – between 5.3 and 2.6 million years ago. We have seen changing precipitation and temperature patterns, resulting in flooding of some agricultural regions and droughts in others, crops and livestock varieties no longer suited to the geographical area where they have been produced, and new problems with insects, weeds, and disease.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use contributes about 23% of total net anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. At the same time, organic production can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester carbon in the soil.

Regenerative organic agriculture reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. In nonorganic, chemical-intensive agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions result from the use of nitrogen fertilizer, synthetic herbicides and insecticides, fossil fuel consumption associated with farm equipment, and the transportation of materials and products to and from the farm. The manufacture of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is a major source of energy use in chemical-intensive agriculture–the manufacture and use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers alone are responsible for as much as 10 percent of direct global agricultural emissions. This is important because pound-for-pound, nitrous oxide is 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide in warming the planet.

Besides reducing energy use, organic agriculture helps combat climate change by sequestering carbon in the soil. Organic agriculture also produces farms resilient to climate change because high soil organic matter content and mulching help to prevent nutrient and water loss. In addition, organic agriculture increases biodiversity, which is needed to meet the challenges of new insects, diseases, and weeds.

The best time to have addressed global warming was 20 years ago, but the second-best time is now. Organic, regenerative agricultural practices help mend the earth from the ground up. Rep. Pingree’s Agriculture Resilience Act establishes specific goals and responsibilities in order to “accelerate the ability of agriculture and the food system to first achieve net zero carbon emissions and then go further to be carbon positive by removing additional carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

Please cosponsor H.R. 5831.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 25, 2020) Beyond Pesticides announces the 38th National Forum, co-convened with the City of Boulder, Colorado, Friday and Saturday, April 17-18, 2020 in Boulder.

Our food system and landscaping practices are contributing to climate change and biodiversity loss. What if the systems that created these problems hold the key to solving them? Join scientists, policymakers, grassroots organizers, educators, writers, artists, and hands-on practitioners to share ideas and create transformative solutions.

Register today! 

See the Forum overview here — more information to come!

Register today!

(Beyond Pesticides, February 24, 2019) With more than 90% of total pesticide use deployed in agriculture, organic farming is the keystone solution to the myriad health, environmental, and biodiversity harms of pesticides. A transition to organic and regenerative farming practices — across which there is great overlap — is critical and a tall order, given the entrenched, chemically intensive practices that currently dominate in the U.S. and much of the world. A long-standing research effort by the storied Rodale Institute — the Farming Systems Trial, which began in 1981— is demonstrating that organic agriculture is not only a nontoxic solution, but also, an economically viable one that is critical to a sustainable future.

Through the Farming Systems Trial (FST), the Rodale Institute has collected data on crop yields, soil health, energy efficiency, nutrient density of drops, and water use and contamination in organic and conventional systems managed with different levels of tillage. Among the findings of the nearly 40-year research project are these:

• after a five-year transition period, organic yields are competitive with conventional yields
  • in drought years, organic yields are as much as 40% higher than conventional yields
• farm profits are 3–6 times higher for products from organically managed systems
• organic management systems use 45% less energy than conventional, and release 40% fewer carbon emissions into the atmosphere
• organic systems leach no toxic chemicals into waterways
• organic systems build, rather than deplete, organic matter in soil, improving soil health

The trial website page notes that “organic matter and thus soil health in organic systems continuously increases over time. Soil health in conventional systems remains essentially unchanged.” (See a detailed report from FST at the 30-year project mark here, and a brochure on the project here.)

The Rodale profitability outcome comports with that of a 2018 study on regenerative farming, as compared with conventional, chemical farming. The Farming Systems Trial project conclusions also reinforce those of a 2017 United Nations report; a 2016 report from the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems; and a University of California, Berkeley study in 2014. The benefits of organic agriculture were discussed nearly a decade ago in an article from the Rodale Institute, republished in Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You.

Begun in 1980 by founder Robert Rodale and created to yield practical data for farmers wanting to transition from conventional to organic practices, the FST is now significantly expanded from its early days. At the main Rodale campus in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, the trial occupies 12 acres, with 72 distinct plots. It is divided into three overarching management systems: Conventional Synthetic, Organic Manure, and Organic Legume. Each system’s area is then divided into those utilizing tillage and, for the organic plots, reduced (alternate-year) tillage practices.

The practices employed under each of the three systems are described on the Rodale FST website: “Conventional Synthetic represents a typical U.S. grain farm. It relies on synthetic nitrogen for fertility, and weeds are controlled by synthetic herbicides selected by and applied at rates recommended by Penn State University Cooperative Extension. . . . Organic Manure represents an organic dairy or beef operation. It features a long rotation of annual feed grain crops and perennial forage crops. Fertility is provided by leguminous cover crops and periodic applications of composted manure. A diverse crop rotation is the primary line of defense against pests. . . . Organic Legume represents an organic cash grain system [in part because it represents the 70% of U.S.-grown crops that are grains]. It features a mid-length rotation consisting of annual grain crops and cover crops. The system’s sole source of fertility is leguminous cover crops and crop rotation provides the primary line of defense against pests.”

FTS is designed to be a long-term study that can capture episodic events, such as drought, longer-term weather effects, and changes in soil biology over time, as well as current management practices. The FTS looks to mimic standard agricultural approaches, so in 2008, genetically engineered (GE) crops and no-till practices were introduced to some conventional plots.

Once upon a time all agriculture was organic, but with the rise of chemical management in the mid-20^th century, organic growing all but disappeared, but for intrepid “back to nature” growers. Since the 1970s, and especially since the early 1990s, organic farming has steadily grown alongside Americans’ awareness of the health and environmental harms that conventional, chemically intensive agriculture imposes. An additional, but underreported, aspect of pesticide use is its relative inefficacy in some instances. Some pesticides just do not work all that well. In addition, as Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2019, “pesticides’ actual utility is both inflated and severely limited, given the issue of resistance.”

Whatever chemical compound may work — for a given pest, on a given crop — may not work a year, or two, or three years hence, because pests (whether insects or weeds) will ultimately develop resistance to any substance to which they are repeatedly exposed. For example, when a target weed develops resistance to an herbicide, conventional agriculture responds — thanks to the chemical industry and its aggressive marketing and near hegemony on some seeds, such as soybeans — by using yet another herbicide, or doubling down with paired herbicides, or rolling out an herbicide-plus-GE-seed combination to try to stave off the pest. This “resistance and response” dynamic is a unidirectional progression along an increasingly poisonous and unsustainable path.

Beyond Pesticides wrote, in 2019, “Chemical interventions to ‘control’ pests of any sort, beyond all the potential toxicity issues, fundamentally cause imbalances in micro and macro ecological systems. . . . Fraught as it is with negative impacts on human and environmental health, including the mounting resistance issues, chemically intensive agriculture should be understood as a sign of the ineffectiveness of conventional, chemical approaches to pest control.”

Organic agriculture represents a range of management approaches; the most-codified and well-known signal of adherence to organic protocols is “Certified Organic,” a USDA label backed by a certification system that verifies that producers or processing facilities are in compliance with the National Organic Standards. Broadly, those rules say that certified organic food “must be produced without the use of conventional pesticides, petroleum- or sewage-based fertilizers, herbicides, genetic engineering, antibiotics, growth hormones or irradiation. Certified organic farms must also adhere to certain animal health and welfare standards, not treat land with any prohibited substances for at least three years prior to harvest.”

According to the most recent data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, the U.S. had more than 14,000 organic farms in 2016 — a 56% increase from 2011. Approximately 1% of the 911 million total U.S. acres of farmland is managed organically, which means that the task of conversion to organic and regenerative agriculture is significant. States with the greatest organic acreage in 2016 were California (by a wide margin, representing 21% of all U.S. certified organic farmland), followed by Montana, New York, and Wisconsin. California also led in the number of organic farms, with New York, Wisconsin, Maine, Iowa, and Pennsylvania also registering high on that list. Proportional to total farmland area, Vermont, California, Maine, and New York had the largest shares of certified organic acreage. Except for those states, the U.S. lags far behind some countries that have achieved more than 10% of farmland managed organically: Australia boasts the largest land area devoted to organic production, followed by Argentina and China.

Growth in the number of organic producers, organic acreage, and organic sales has responded to public demand for clean and healthful food. According to Bloomberg, Organic Trade Association Executive Director Laura Batcha said in 2019 that “young families are among the drivers in the organic market as they seek to avoid residues of chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones on food.” The Pew Research Center reported, “In 2015, the Organic Trade Association estimated U.S. organic retail sales at $43 billion, representing double-digit growth in most years since 2000.” U.S. farm and ranch commodity sales rose by 23% from 2015 to 2016 alone. This level of demand bodes well for the momentum of organic.

The higher prices that organic products enjoy in the marketplace are no doubt one reason for Rodale’s result — “farm profits are 3–6 times higher for products from organically managed systems.” Higher profitability for farmers is certainly a strong “selling” point for conversion to organic, and can represent a bulwark against the stressors farmers are experiencing, including consolidation, “graying” of farmers, development pressures, rising input costs, and insufficient generational transfer of land. Stressors on agriculture are even more pronounced currently, given the Trump administration tariffs that are negatively affecting U.S. farms.

Increased farmgate prices for organics, which are good for producers, can also be a strain on consumers who cannot afford organics at current pricing. Beyond the purchasing experience of the individual consumer, the simple differential between retail organic and non-organic prices does not tell the whole, systemic story. As Beyond Pesticides wrote about back in 2011, the accounting of the cost of conventional food production does not include the cost of the many externalized, negative health and environmental outcomes related to that production. “Some researchers calculate the adverse impacts to health and the environment to be as much as $16.9 billion a year [which is no doubt higher in 2020]. We still pay these costs, just not at the grocery checkout counter. Instead, we see these costs in the form of higher taxes and medical bills, and decreased quality of life due to environmental pollution.”

Organic production all but eliminates these externalized costs, making organic food — in the aggregate — far more affordable. Too, the “scaling” phenomenon will work in agriculture as it does elsewhere: as more acres are put into organic production, and supply lines and the marketplace retool and scale up to accommodate consumer, producer, and processor needs, prices can be expected to shift downward somewhat in the longer term. As with all economic transitions, there is an uncomfortable “between paradigms” period. But as in other realms, a “just transition” to organic, to protect agricultural workers and low-income consumers, is another important aspect of agricultural justice, and should be an important goal that is supported by appropriate federal and state policies.

Organic agricultural practices, which reject the use of harmful pesticides, are capable of the benefits the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial is demonstrating. Such practices protect human and animal health, and support functional ecosystems and biodiversity. Widespread adoption of organic and regenerative agriculture can also lift human agro-activity out of its current chemical dead-end. The public has an important role to play in this transition: learn more about organic agriculture, advocate for it, and “vote” for organics by creating market demand for organic food.

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

Sources: https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial/ and https://www.cornucopia.org/2015/07/30-year-old-trial-finds-organic-farming-outperforms-conventional-agriculture/?fbclid=IwAR3RDJsezWtb9xQ8QeMjtMzA_iYGDTWKTNDwovK7Wj8PW4bHvwojEycQWpg

(Beyond Pesticides, February 21, 2020) Last week in Minnesota, state Representative Jean Wagenius introduced measure H.F. 1255 that would give cities the opportunity to ban local use of bee-lethal pesticides. This is the latest in a series of attempts to fight state pesticide preemption, an industry-promoted law that prevents localities from restricting pesticide use more stringently than the state. In the face of inaction at the federal and state levels, advocates and legislators in Minnesota are attempting to regain local control to help save their declining, Midwestern pollinators. Representative Wagenius says about the measure, “Minnesotans should be able to protect pollinators if they want to. We value local control in this state, and we always have.”

H.F. 1255 will allow cities to opt into a blanket ban of pesticides determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be hazardous to bees. Pesticides with an EPA bee-advisory box are listed on the state’s Department of Agriculture website and referred to as “bee-lethal” by Minnesota legislators. Patrick Hanlon, director of environmental programs for the city of Minneapolis, says cities would work with Department of Agriculture, businesses, and residents that might be impacted by these restrictions before enacting the bill.

Local advocates have pointed to the issue of declining pollinators since 2013 when three beekeepers in Minneapolis lost their honey bee hives from acute pesticide poisoning. They built a powerful coalition and passed a city resolution declaring Minneapolis a “pollinator-friendly city” which, among other things, directed the City of Minneapolis to lobby for local control. 39 more cities in Minnesota have since declared themselves “pollinator-friendly” – more than any other state. The momentum in this movement is growing as bad news for pollinators continues to break.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources surveyed over 63 prairie sites for 13 known native butterflies from 2014-2016 and, disappointingly, found only 6 of those species. The agency has also estimated that Minnesota’s state bee, the endangered rusty patch bumblebee, lost 90% of its population over the past 20 years.

“For some folks, it’s a moral issue, and for others it’s a financial issue,” Rep. Wagenius told ABC News. “We’ve have had a lot of our beekeepers take their hives to California.”

For the past seven years, Minneapolis Representative Jim Davnie attempted to push for a “half preemption” bill that only restored local control to Minnesota’s four largest cities: Minneapolis, Rochester, St. Paul, and Duluth. However, powerful industry pushback has stalled any progress. Opposing forces cite a “hard-to-navigate” patchwork of rules and inability to control invasive species such as the emerald ash-borer.

State Representative Rick Hansen says pesticide users and manufacturers have made “apocalyptic arguments” for over 30 years about the negative impact of banning certain chemicals. He told the Star Tribune, “Well, in the meantime bad things have been happening and things are falling apart.”

While this measure indicates a positive step for protecting pollinators, Beyond Pesticides represents concerns such as EPA’s inadequate labeling for honeybee protection and the limited scope of the bill. More than negatively impacting pollinators, toxic pesticides also harm children and contaminate Minnesota’s drinking water.

Beyond Pesticides celebrates Minnesotan advocates making headway in different areas, (for example, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board ended the use of glyphosate (RoundUp) and created a pesticide advisory committee to inform reductions in the use of toxic pesticides) but sweeping reform needs to come from the federal level. For pollinator-specific legislation, local and national advocates can support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act (H.R.1337), which will not only cancel specific bee-toxic pesticides, it will also reshape the EPA process for permitting pesticides to be used in our communities and homes in the first place. Under this bill, pesticides that pose risks to pollinators will undergo a higher level of review by a board of unbiased pollinator experts. If these experts, who will not have conflicts of interest with the chemical industry, determine a pesticide is too toxic, then it will be removed or never allowed on the market in the first place.

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

Sources: Star Tribune, ABC

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2020) Missouri’s largest peach farm, Bader Farms, is set to receive $265 million in compensation from two multinational agrichemical companies after the companies’ dicamba-based weed killers caused widespread damage to the farm’s fruit trees. Bayer’s Monsanto and BASF were found to be responsible for negligence in the design of their dicamba herbicides, and failure to warn farmers about the dangers of their products. The jury determined that the joint venture between the two companies amounted to a conspiracy to create an “ecological disaster” in the name of profit.

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved Bayer Monsanto’s release of a new line of genetically engineered (GE) seeds designed to tolerate repeated spraying of dicamba. With glyphosate resistant ‘super-weeds’ widespread and threatening GE farmer’s yields, the company aimed to redeploy dicamba, one of the oldest herbicides in the market, on cotton and soybeans throughout the U.S. Knowing the propensity of dicamba to drift for miles off site, Bayer’s Monsanto promised a new product line with much lower volatility.  But as the company was waiting on approval for this product by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it nonetheless began selling its dicamba-tolerant seeds.

This led to widespread reports of non-target crop damage, as farmers began illegally spraying older dicamba formulations, including those produced by BASF, on the new GE crops. Bayer’s Monsanto rejected any accountability for the actions they perpetuated. Bader Farm’s lawsuit argued that the company could have prevented the problem had they not released the GE seeds prior to the EPA-approved formulation.

While BASF and Bayer’s Monsanto were found liable of conspiring to create an ecological disaster, nontarget drift and damage did not stop when the companies received final EPA approval for their new dicamba formulations. Emails obtained by reporters at the Arkansas Democrat and Chronicle showed that field trials conducted alongside Bayer’s Monsanto found high levels of volatility and drift from the supposed low drift formulation. Despite the company’s close involvement in field testing, Bayer’s Monsanto balked at a more protective buffer zone of 443 ft, pushing instead for one set at 57 feet. EPA scientists agreed with the more protective buffer, but were apparently overruled by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

This is the second instance in recent history where stricter regulations may have helped the agrichemical industry avoid or avert litigation. In the context of lawsuits that may cost Bayer $10 billion, EPA’s reapproval of glyphosate without any cancer warning label was compared to the Surgeon General approving cigarettes without a warning label. “Imagine if there was no tobacco settlement and that cigarettes were still sold without a Surgeon General warning label,” said Bloomberg reporter Adam Allington on twitter. “People would be suing left and right over product defect claims, and failure to warn. And they would be winning.”

USDA could have refused (as Beyond Pesticides urged) or delayed approval of dicamba-tolerant GE seeds without a corresponding herbicide, and EPA could have imposed stricter buffers after damage reports became widespread. But in comedic and tragic irony, the agrichemical industry’s ability to run roughshod over U.S. regulatory systems has led to significant liability within the U.S. justice system.

Reports indicate that the Bader Farms lawsuit was a trial balloon for a rash of similar suits against the two companies waiting in the cue, much like the first glyphosate cancer case with California landscaper Dewayne Johnson. The jury verdict, $15 million in actual and $250 million in punitive damages, will be appealed by the companies.

While hope springs eternal that agrichemical companies will change their approach and embrace a method of crop production that does not poison land and harm public health, it is critical that we call out regulators like EPA for their failure to follow sound science. Although the agency itself not on trial, EPA remains complicit in the continued use of hazardous dicamba. Help us send a message to EPA today: Do Your Job to Protect Health and the Environment.  

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, February 19, 2020) The ongoing insect apocalypse isn’t sparing the iconic firefly. In an article published this month, “A Global Perspective on Firefly Extinction Threats,” experts are sounding the alarm over declines in fireflies attributed to habitat loss, light pollution, and indiscriminate pesticide use. “Our goal is to make this knowledge available for land managers, policy makers and firefly fans everywhere,” said study co-author Sonny Wong, PhD, of the Malaysian Nature Society to USA Today. “We want to keep fireflies lighting up our nights for a long, long time.”

Although there is scant monitoring data on firefly populations, studies that have been conducted over the last decade, alongside anecdotal reports and expert opinion, have led to international concern. To assess conservation status and threats to firefly species, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) established a Firefly Specialist Group. The study, part of the specialist group’s investigation, surveyed firefly experts from around the world on what they viewed as the primary threats to firefly populations.

Experts specified habitat loss, light pollution, and pesticide use as the three top concerns, though water pollution, tourism, invasive species, and climate change were also discussed as minor contributing factors.

Night-time light pollution, including direct, localized light pollution as well as “sky glow” from various sources, has been inversely associated with firefly abundance. Fireflies use their lights as part of a courtship dance, and studies find that artificial light at night can interfere with a firefly’s ability to find mates and reproduce.

Habitat loss is presents a range of problems for fireflies. Many species prefer specific habitat types, and loss or fragmentation of these landscapes can lead to localized declines. Experts identified urbanization, industrialization, and industrial agricultural as the drivers of habitat loss, with each region of the world experiencing different effects at various intensities.

Pesticide use is particularly pernicious in the context of firefly ecology. While direct contact with pesticide sprays is a concern, exposure in soil and water represent greater hazards. This is because many firefly species lay their eggs in soil, and many spend the first years of their life in aquatic habitats like mangroves and other riparian vegetation (vegetation along the banks of waterways). Pesticides, like the neonicotinoid class of insecticides also implicated in pollinator declines, are known to drift once applied, and persist in soil and waterways.

A majority of corn and soybean seeds are coated in toxic insecticides, and researchers point to a study published last year in Pest Management Science, which found that use of pesticide-treated corn seeds resulted in a 70.4% reduction in firefly abundance compared to control plots that did not use treated seeds. Lastly, because fireflies live most of their lives in their larval stage, feeding on snails and earthworms, pesticides can also indirectly kill-off firefly prey, which ripples up and down the food chain, ultimately reducing firefly populations.

In addition to identifying drivers of firefly declines, researchers also proposed solutions. They encourage the preservation of suitable firefly habitat, control of light pollution, and reduction in pesticide use. These changes may sound difficult at first, but there are efforts underway to address them. The International Dark Sky Association is working to protect night skies for present and future generations. Conservation groups around the country are working to preserve wildlife habitat, and reconnect insect pollinators and other wildlife through safety corridors. The growth of organic agriculture provides a roadmap for a farming future that rejects the industrial model and its rampant pesticide use in favor of a systems approach that enhances insect soil life and promotes biodiversity.

The insect apocalypse is real – pollinators are declining, the bottom is falling out of the foundation of our food chains as mayflies decline, and the night sky may yet lose the soft flicker of fireflies. While efforts to address declines are encouraging, they must be supported by an active and engaged public willing to pressure elected leaders at every level of government to enact these solutions. One first step we can take to protect pollinators, fireflies, and stave off the insect apocalypse is to pass the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. Take action today by sending a letter to your Congressional Representative, and following up with a phone call to their office.

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

Source: USA Today, Bioscience  
(Photo Credit Mike Lewinski)

(Beyond Pesticides, February 18, 2019) As in the in the past, President Trump once more proposes a budget that slashes funding for essential scientific research and environmental protection. His budget proposal includes cuts of nearly 10 percent to Health and Human Services (HHS) and 26 percent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And in the Department of Agriculture (USDA), he would again attempt to cut back on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps). Climate change appears to be absent.

Tell your Congressional delegation to hold the line on EPA’s budget to protect health, resources, and the economy!

Although agency heads, like Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, support the President’s budget, nonprofit advocates for scientific research and environmental protection are more negative. “The administration’s proposed budget cuts to research risk slowing our nation’s science just when it is reaping benefits for all Americans in the forms of better health, a stronger economy, a more sustainable environment, a safer world, and awe-inspiring understanding,” said Sudip Parikh, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Even as the new coronavirus spreads, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is targeted for a 16 percent reduction. CDC has responsibilities that go well beyond infectious diseases and drug abuse. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, established as part of the Superfund program, is part of CDC that creates toxicological profiles—comprehensive evaluations of toxic chemicals found at toxic waste sites.

The proposed 26 percent reduction in EPA’s budget would eliminate nearly 50 programs, including large cuts to research and development and elimination of funding for the Energy Star program. “Congress should toss this Trump budget into the dustbin of history like they’ve done with the other ones,” said former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who served during the Obama administration and is now head of the Natural Resources Defense Council.  

The U.S. House of Representatives, which is constitutionally invested with the “power of the purse,” will be looking closely at cuts in the proposed budget. “Like the three budgets before this, the Trump budget request will likely face bipartisan opposition, but we can’t take anything for granted. As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I will fight for funding to support the long-term health and wellbeing of all Americans and reject this reckless budget from President Trump,” said U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree of Maine.

Tell your Congressional delegation to hold the line on EPA’s budget to protect health, resources, and the economy!

Letter to Congress

Please support a budget that fully funds scientific research and environmental protection programs.

Although his appointed agency heads support the President’s budget, nonprofit advocates for scientific research and environmental protection are more negative. “The administration’s proposed budget cuts to research risk slowing our nation’s science just when it is reaping benefits for all Americans in the forms of better health, a stronger economy, a more sustainable environment, a safer world, and awe-inspiring understanding,” said Sudip Parikh, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Even as the new coronavirus spreads, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is targeted for a 16 percent reduction. CDC has responsibilities that go well beyond infectious diseases and drug abuse. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, established as part of the Superfund program, is part of CDC that creates toxicological profiles—comprehensive evaluations of toxic chemicals found at toxic waste sites.

President Trump’s proposed 26 percent reduction in EPA’s budget would eliminate nearly 50 programs, including large cuts to research and development and elimination of funding for the Energy Star program. “Congress should toss this Trump budget into the dustbin of history like they’ve done with the other ones,” said former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who is now head of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

This is false economy. It endangers the American public and its air, land, water, and biodiversity. EPA is responsible for enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act, with a goal of making the nation’s waters fishable and swimmable. EPA enforces the Clean Air Act, which has cleaned up American cities, reducing illness and property damage from smog. And EPA is responsible for overseeing the clean-up of contaminated sites, thus preventing further pollution and illness. The agency also regulates pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

All of EPA’s programs require the application of science to public policy.

EPA has been plagued with budget constraints for many years, but now, with such drastic cuts, programs spearheaded by EPA to protect air, water, people, and wildlife from toxic pollution will suffer–a goal made clear by the Trump Administration. Eliminating resources needed to prevent problems means that more money will need to be spent repairing damage and treating disease.

EPA plays a critical role in reviewing science and implementing laws protecting human health and the environment. Science itself has been under attack by the Trump Administration, as evidenced by its issuance of scientific grant and hiring freezes at EPA and other agencies nationwide, along with a ban on science communications through social media platforms.

Please support a budget that fully funds scientific research and environmental protection programs.

Sincerely,