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

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

Tell Congress to save our oceans.

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

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

The order cites the need for “removing outdated and unnecessarily burdensome regulations,” reducing “burdens on domestic fishing,” and increasing production.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

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

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

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

Tell Congress to save our oceans.

Thank you!
The Beyond Pesticides Team

Letter to Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please act to strengthen protections for our oceans.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please sign the petition by June 10.

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

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

Thank you,
The Beyond Pesticides Team

PETITION TO EPA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Letter to Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Source: NewsChannel5 Nashville

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Hill

BMJ Journals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 22, 2020) For years, USDA has been looking the other way as giant corporate agribusinesses, primarily producing conventional eggs and poultry, have squeezed family-scale farmers out of the market and misled and defrauded consumers.

Due to a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration on the scuttling of new rules that would make it harder for factory farms to qualify for organic status, USDA is seeking input on what was previously an error-filled and biased economic assessment of the rulemaking.

Please sign the letter by noon on Tuesday, May 26, to include your voice in our response to the official proceedings.

If you would prefer to write your own custom comment you can submit it on Regulations.gov.

Letter to National Organic Program (Jenny Tucker, Ph.D.

To the National Organic Program:

Please include my comment below in evaluating the economic analysis report pursuant to the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rulemaking.

Docket number: AMS-NOP-20-0037

Both the current and previous OLPP analyses include the following misstatements and omissions:

1. It is a misconception to refer to, and judge, the economic impacts of the OLPP as if the requirement for outdoor access was a new and onerous regulation. In fact, from the beginning of the USDA organic program, “all” organic livestock have been required to have access to the outdoors. The new proposed rule does nothing more than create some enforceable benchmarks to facilitate oversight by USDA and its accredited third-party certifiers. 
2. Analyzing the economic impact, as if this were a new regulatory obligation, is misdirected. All organic livestock producers should have been providing meaningful outdoor access from day one. 
3. Factoring in impacts on retail pricing is not germane to this decision-making. The size of the market is irrelevant. When consumers pay a premium for organic eggs and poultry, they expect that the birds are being managed in accordance with the law, which requires outdoor access and promotion of the natural instinctive behaviors of the animals. 
4. True organic management of meat birds and laying hens is not currently possible in the massive industrial-sized buildings that USDA has allowed to be certified. Investments were made in these structures while it was known that elements in the organic industry were challenging the legality of the operations and, thus, their investments have always been at risk. 
5. In England and the European Union, organic birds have always had access to the outdoors in smaller flocks. Subsequently, the price differential between conventional and organic eggs has been greater. However, the market share for organic in many of those countries surpasses that of the United States. Organic consumers already assume that they are buying eggs and poultry produced with a higher level of animal welfare. They are currently being defrauded. The question of their willingness to pay a premium is irrelevant. 
6. If some of the larger operators are forced to exit, entrepreneurs will quickly scale-up to meet new market demand. The shift to producers who comply with both the spirit and letter of the law should not be a factor in implementing the new rulemaking. 
7. Regardless of how much outdoor space is provided, it is not possible to offer legitimate access when birds are housed in giant, multitiered aviary systems.  Buildings housing as many as 100,000-200,000 birds prevent the expression of instinctual behavior, a regulatory requirement, as it would be necessary to walk over thousands of other birds in order to access a door. Believing otherwise is a myth perpetuated by corporate interests in egg production. 
8. Because USDA’s analysis starts from the wrong baseline—one that is not consistent with the law–the analysis omits the economic injury to family-scale farmers who are currently complying with the regulations by allowing birds meaningful access to the outdoors that continues when the OLPP is not implemented. Furthermore, there are many family farmers who have been prevented from entering the organic market for poultry meat and eggs because, as it has grown, market share has been dominated by giant conventional ag companies that have gamed the system to achieve lower operating costs and higher profitability.

In conclusion, any economic analysis of the impact of new rulemaking should be viewed through the prism of the Organic Foods Production Act and its current regulations. To do otherwise places family farmers at a competitive disadvantage and perpetuates a fraudulent myth that the majority of organic poultry, managed by corporate agribusiness, is truly “organic.”

Please sign the letter by noon on Tuesday, May 26, to include your voice in our response to the official proceedings.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2020) Use of the herbicide dicamba increases humans’ risk of various acute and chronic cancers, according to research published in the International Journal of Epidemiology by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Many pesticides are “known or probable” carcinogens (cancer-causing agents), and their widespread use only amplifies chemical hazards, adversely affecting human health. However, past research lacks comprehensive information regarding human health effects associated with long-term pesticide use. This study highlights the significant role that long-term research plays in identifying potential health concerns surrounding registered pesticides, especially as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to reaffirm its decision to allow dicamba use on genetically engineered (GE) crops. Nathan Donley, Ph.D., a scientist with the environmental health program at the Center for Biological Diversity, comments: “This sweeping study exposes the terrible human cost of the EPA’s reckless decision to expand the use of dicamba. […]For the EPA to approve widespread use of this poison across much of the country without assuring its safety to people and the environment is an absolute indictment of the agency’s persistent practice of rubber-stamping dangerous pesticides.”

Dicamba—a benzoic acid chemical that controls broadleaf weeds—is one of the most widely applied herbicides in corn production. As a result of weed resistant to weed killers, farmers rely on increased, more frequent applications of dicamba as a control measure. However, with this increase in the chemical’s use, there is growing concern surrounding the dicamba’s potential human health effects. 

In this research, NIH researchers analyzed data from an Agricultural Health Study (AHS) involving 49,922 Iowan and North Carolinian pesticide applicators. Applicators reported dicamba use during two enrollment periods: (1993-1997) and (1999-2005). Researchers calculated dicamba exposure using intensity-weighted lifetime-days, cumulative measurements of specific pesticide use, and various incident cancer diagnoses and adjusted for exposure lags of up to 20 years. To assess relative risks (RR) with a 95% confidence interval associated with cancer diagnoses from the initial enrollment periods to 2014/2015, NIH researchers used a multivariable Poisson regression model.

Over half (52.9%) of all pesticide applicators in the study use dicamba. Participants reporting dicamba use are at elevated risk of developing liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia at the highest exposure level. Additionally, dicamba exposure risks are associated with liver cancer and acute myeloid leukemia linger, as much as 20-years after chemical exposure.

Commercial dicamba use is widespread throughout the U.S., with research findings linking the chemical to neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, sensitization/irritation, birth/developmental defects, reproductive damage, and respiratory illnesses. The AHS analysis also associates dicamba use with colon and lung cancer. In addition to human health effects, studies find that dicamba adversely impacts ecological health, causing harm to birds; insects; fish; aquatic organisms; non-target plants; and pollinators, like beetles. Not only do laboratory studies indicate that dicamba alters animal liver function to promote tumor growth and cancer, but they also find that it induces oxidative stress and DNA mutations—all of which are conduits acknowledged to cause cancer. Lastly, extensive dicamba use can induce antibiotic resistance in human pathogens like Escherichia coli and Salmonella eterica. Despite dicamba’s various adverse health associations, it remains available for commercial use in agricultural and non-agricultural settings alike. 

Traditionally, dicamba applications are preemergent (applied to the soil before seed planting), but with Monsanto’s 2016 release of dicamba-resistant GE seeds, farmers are spraying dicamba directly on to crops. However, direct spray application increases the risk of dicamba exposure as the chemical is highly volatile, consequently becoming airborne and drifting. Dicamba drift causes significant crop damage and many states, including Arkansas and Missouri, have adopted bans and restrictions of its use. Missouri peach farmer, Bill Bader, suffered huge financial losses after 30,000 peach trees perished due to dicamba drift onto his orchid from adjacent agricultural properties. In 2017, dicamba drift from Arkansas soybean crops led to a fatal shooting after the chemical caused damage to non-target crops nearby. Although hot weather increases dicamba volatility and thus pesticide drift, the strongest drift occurs when growers combine dicamba with pesticides like glyphosate or 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2, 4-D). Dr. Donley concludes, “Just as with glyphosate, we were falsely told that dicamba was completely safe for humans, and there was nothing to worry about.[…] With dicamba’s ability to drift for miles, people in many areas of the country are now routinely forced to breathe in this dangerous pesticide.”

Combining pesticides can have a synergetic impact on human health as the aggregate risks associated with joint pesticide use causes greater damage than individual pesticide use. Dicamba and 2,4-D are the most commonly global agricultural herbicides, both individually and as a mixture. A 2002 study found that women exposed to a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba had higher instances of abortion and fetal resorption, at low doses. Argentinian researchers find that both dicamba and 2,4-D induce aquatic organism (fish) toxicity, regardless of concentration, through synergy via the presence of each chemical counterpart in the mixture. 

To date, this NIH research is the most comprehensive epidemiological study on dicamba’s association with cancer. However, EPA is set to re-approve dicamba use on genetically engineered cotton and soybeans by the end of the year, since the agency designates the herbicide as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Due to this designation, EPA allows the expanded use of dicamba without evaluating the cancer risk that dicamba poses. Additionally, EPA approved an expansion of dicamba use in 2018, despite the 5 million acres of crop damage it caused between 2016-2017. 

As has been previously stated: “[Beyond Pesticides] has long been critical of EPA’s risk assessment process, which fails to look at chemical mixtures and synergistic effects (or inert ingredients) in common pesticide products, as well as certain health endpoints (such as endocrine disruption), disproportionate effects to vulnerable population groups, and regular noncompliance with product label directions. These deficiencies contribute to its severe limitations in defining real-world poisoning, as captured by epidemiologic studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.”

The adverse health effects of dicamba, drift and resulting exposure, and the aggregate risk of the pesticide being mixed with glyphosate showcases the need for more rigorous pesticide regulation. Revaluation of current policies that ignore the need to evaluate pesticide mixtures can ensure a reduction in pesticide harms, cleaner air, and crop loss. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers to adopt regenerative organic practices. These practices aim to end the cycle of pesticide resistance, eliminating the need for pesticides—and pesticide mixtures—and the hazards caused by drift. Those impacted by pesticide drift can refer to Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency and contact the organization for additional information.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity, International Journal of Epidemiology

(Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2020) The World Health Organization (WHO) released an updated advisory that warns, “spraying disinfectants can result in risks to the eyes, respiratory or skin irritation and the resulting health effects.” Beyond Pesticides recommends caution around toxic disinfectant and sanitizers and, to this end, offers resources and advice on products for use in the fight against Covid-19.

“Spraying or fogging of certain chemicals, such as formaldehyde, chlorine-based agents or quaternary ammonium compounds, is not recommended due to adverse health effects on workers in facilities where these methods have been utilized,” WHO reports.

While some governments are broadcasting chemicals or washing down sidewalks with disinfectants, WHO advises against the practice. “Spraying or fumigation of outdoor spaces, such as streets or marketplaces, is also not recommended to kill the COVID-19 virus or other pathogens because disinfectant is inactivated by dirt and debris and it is not feasible to manually clean and remove all organic matter from such spaces,” they state.

As individuals, companies, and governments respond to the novel coronavirus, it is critical that they respond with measures supported by scientific research and public safety. Using toxic cleaning products can be counterproductive to maintaining health during the pandemic—and there are safer products in the marketplace. In April, the New York Times described an increase in calls to poison control centers regarding illnesses resulting from use or misuse of toxic disinfectants during the pandemic. A month later, news agency KCRA described the same trend in California: the number of calls jumped from 262 in February to 796 in April.

“People are at home, they are worried about things being clean to kill viruses. People have been using more cleaning products than usual and maybe mixing them together. And just because people are using more of these products in the home, kids have access to them and are getting exposed that way,” said Justin Lewis, PharmD, DABAT, director of the California Poison Control System’s Sacramento office.

Toxic products are not necessary to keep families safe. For surfaces, the WHO guidance recommends using water and soap (or natural detergent) to remove organic matter and debris that can get between a surface and the disinfectant, then following along afterward with a product that breaks down microorganisms, including coronaviruses. Disinfectants that use natural-based substances are safer and can still eliminate the virus on surfaces. Examples of safer active ingredients include citric acid, ethanol, and isopropanol.

Individuals can protect themselves from Covid-19 by preventing exposure through staying home when possible, universal masking in public, social distancing, and washing hands.  As Beyond Pesticides writes in its factsheet, Protecting Yourself from COVID-19 (coronavirus) without Toxic Sanitizers and Disinfectants, “Soap breaks down the virus’s fat membrane—and the infectious material falls apart—as long as you rub the soap on your hands for at least 20 seconds. Alcohol sanitizers with 60% ethanol or 70% isopropanol do the same thing. These chemicals break down the virus by a similar process, by breaking down the lipid covering of the virus.”

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

Sources: World Health Organization, CNN, KCRA

(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2020) The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is taking public comments on a proposal to establish statewide comparable-to-organic standards for cannabis production. Although cannabis remains illegal at the federal level, and thus cannot be labeled with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic seal, there is no prohibition on a state-specific program that follows federal organic requirements, but does not use the word “organic.” While such a program has the potential to provide another level of protection for medical patients, questions and concerns remain over the allowance of certain products, and the impact the certifying scheme may have on the future trajectory of the cannabis production industry.

Under the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation Safety Act, passed in 2017 after the success of Proposition 64 by California voters, state agencies were tasked with establishing a state-level program to certify cannabis to the standards set out by USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP). CDFA is required to finalize this program for cannabis production by the start of 2021, while the California Department of Public Health will create a separate program to certify manufactured cannabis products.

As outlined by CFDA, cannabis would be certified through third-party accreditation organizations. Growers would be restricted to materials listed in NOP’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances or allowed by the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and required to have an “Ocal systems plan.” The state tracked the provisions of the Organic Foods Production Act closely, making mostly superficial changes only when necessary.  

Some health advocates are concerned that CDFA’s proposal lacks the specificity needed to address concerns unique to the cannabis industry. Allowed and prohibited materials approved for inclusion on the National List by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) did not specifically consider cannabis consumption within its deliberations. The inhalation route of exposure, particularly as it concerns medical patients, requires an additional level of scrutiny, and, according to advocates, California state consumers would be well-served by the establishment of a state level Ocal Standards Board to further review whether certain pesticides and other processing materials should be restricted in the context of cannabis consumption.  

Further, allowance of all materials approved on the current National List could bring the state into a fight with federal regulators. In 2017, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a notice of intent to disapprove the registration of four pesticides for cannabis production in California. In its reasoning, the agency wrote that is “…finds that the general illegality of cannabis cultivation makes pesticide use on cannabis a fundamentally different use pattern.” EPA’s determination indicates that no registered pesticide can be legally used on cannabis plants.

To date, California has followed this more restrictive guidance, permitting only minimum risk pesticides exempt from federal registration be used in cannabis production. However, other states, such as Washington and Colorado, permit pesticide use under guidelines established during the Obama Administration. These guidelines allowed the use of registered pesticides use as long as the product was exempt from a tolerance for food crops, and contained generalized label language. Thus, if other states follow California’s lead, allowing even organic products that are also registered pesticides may bring federal scrutiny.

Apart from the legal specifics are concerns over splitting the industry into an organic and conventional sector. Beyond Pesticides has long maintained that consumers, workers, and the environment would be best served if states established universal organic standards for the cannabis industry from the outset. When it comes to products that many individuals are using as medicine, and consumers are typically inhaling without any filtration, the state has an obligation to promote rigorous production standards.

It is evident that the current scheme of spot testing is not a long-term solution to problems of pesticide contamination in cannabis production, as growers can simply avoid using active ingredients they know will be tested by the state in favor of similar, equally hazardous compounds. While “organic” labeling is welcome, all cannabis growers in California should be required to follow Ocal production standards.

Comments on the proposed regulations may be submitted until July 7, 2020, via email to [email protected]. For more background, see Beyond Pesticides’ piece Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options, as well as previous Daily News articles on the subject.

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

Source: CalCannabis Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2020) On May 15, 2020, Beyond Pesticides sued Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) for “false and deceptive marketing,” misrepresenting to consumers that it “has invested significantly in the production and use of “clean” energy and environmentally beneficial technology.” The truth, according to the complaint (Beyond Pesticides v. Exxon Mobil Corporation) filed in DC Superior Court, is that the vast majority of Exxon’s business continues to be in the production and use of petroleum, natural gas, and petrochemicals, including pesticides. These activities are significant contributors to the climate crisis and the decline of pollinators and biodiversity, threatening the viability of biological systems that sustain life, according to Beyond Pesticides.

“ExxonMobil’s advertising and marketing mislead the public by presenting ExxonMobil’s clean energy activities as a significant proportion of its overall business,” according the lawsuit. In an age where consumers are looking to support responsible companies that are supporting and transitioning away from fossil fuel-based energy and chemical products, “ExxonMobil is able to capture the growing market of consumers,” according to the complaint.

Surveys have found that consumers are more likely to buy products and services based on corporate image. For example, a 2015 Nielsen survey finds that the majority of consumers are more likely to buy products and services from companies “known for” being environmentally friendly or committed to social value.

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

Beyond Pesticides is working with consumers, farmers, landscapers, and communities across the country and worldwide to expedite a transition to organic land management practices (defined under the Organic Foods Production Act), eliminating petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, which release human-caused carbon into the atmosphere and are destructive of soil biology and organic matter, nutrient cycling, and carbon sequestration. Drawing down carbon from the atmosphere into the soil (sequestration) on a massive scale is critical to a holistic strategy for reversing the climate crisis—which is feasible with regenerative organic systems that could, if universally adopted, capture more than 100 percent of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

Exxon espouses a “commitment to develop new resources to ensure the world has the energy it needs while also minimizing the environmental impacts, including the risks associated with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.”

Exxon has invested heavily in its image as a “clean” and “green” company with advertising on its leadership on carbon capture and storage technology to the tune of 1.8 billion advertising impressions for this one campaign. Yet, according to the complaint, “Since 2000, ExxonMobil’s capital expenditures total well over $465 billion. Thus, the $9 billion in environmentally beneficial investments touted by ExxonMobil demonstrate that no more than 2% of ExxonMobil’s capital expenditures in the past 20 years was invested in lower-emission solutions, carbon capture and storage technology, biofuels, cogeneration, and more efficient manufacturing processes, combined.”

“Deceiving the public into believing that one of the largest petroleum companies in the world is committed to solving the climate crisis, while it continues to devastate the planet, is dangerous and inexcusable, especially given what’s at stake,” said Mr. Feldman. “This is especially problematic, given that real solutions to the climate crisis and biodiversity destruction are within our reach if not slowed by deceptive practices of Exxon and other powerful corporations,” Mr. Feldman continued.

“The coronavirus pandemic challenges us to think differently and act urgently to prioritize the importance of science in government and corporate decision making, take the necessary steps to avert looming crises that affect public health and the environment, and hold companies accountable to practices that protect life,” said Mr. Feldman. Beyond Pesticides advocates for the adoption of organic land management, a systems approach that eliminates toxic petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers and builds organic matter and soil biology as a means of cycling nutrients for plant health, sequestering carbon on a massive scale, and protecting biodiversity. Organic methods are successfully and economically used in managing agriculture, lawns, parks, and playing fields across the country.

Exxon’s false and misleading representations and omissions violate the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“DC CPPA”), D.C. Code§§ 28-3901, et seq., according to the complaint filed on Friday. Beyond Pesticides is represented by the Richman Law Group, headquartered in New York City.

See Beyond Pesticides v. Exxon Mobil Corporation.
Source: Beyond Pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2020) New research out of Japan’s Chiba University suggests that exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the most commonly used pesticide worldwide (Roundup), may be a risk factor in the development of Parkinson’s Disease. The ubiquity of glyphosate use in agriculture — which leaves residues of the toxic chemical in food — may mean that exposures to it represent a significant risk factor for the disease. Glyphosate is already implicated or proved in the development of numerous health anomalies, including cancer. Beyond Pesticides recognizes that pesticides play a variety of roles in causing or exacerbating negative health outcomes, including Parkinson’s Disease (PD). Transitioning pest management — in agriculture, land management, and household and personal care contexts — to nontoxic and organic approaches is the critical step away from bathing humans and the Earth in harmful chemicals.

The researchers in this subject study, out of the Chiba University Center for Forensic Mental Health’s Division of Clinical Neuroscience, sought to investigate whether exposures to glyphosate could impact dopaminergic neurotoxicity in the brains of mice. They found that exposures to glyphosate in adult mice intensified a type of neurotoxicity associated with PD. [The abstract for the research paper, titled “Glyphosate exposure exacerbates the dopaminergic neurotoxicity in the mouse brain after repeated administration of MTPT,” is available online; once published, the paper will be available through Science Direct.]

Parkinson’s Disease is a progressive and neurodegenerative brain disease that impacts motor function; it manifests primarily in symptoms such as trembling, loss of muscle control, stiffness, and poor coordination. These may be intermittent, especially in early stages of the disease, and typically intensify over time. PD can also cause cognitive changes and decline, constipation, poor sleep, fatigue, anxiety and/or depression, sexual dysfunction, paresthesias, and other impacts. Approximately one million people in the U.S. have Parkinson’s Disease, with 50,000–60,000 new diagnoses annually; globally, 7–10 million people live with PD. The disease affects 50% more men than women.

PD occurs when dopamine production and transport are compromised; dopamine is a primary neurotransmitter (though not the only one) mediating motor function. The disease ensues when dopaminergic nerve cells (i.e., those activated by or sensitive to dopamine) in a region of the brain called the substantia nigra, or SNr, are damaged or destroyed and can no longer produce dopamine. The SNr is a motor nucleus located in the midbrain, whereas another brain structure relevant to the study’s findings — the striatum — is part of the basal ganglia. Some neurons from the SNr terminate in the striatum, which also plays a role in voluntary movement.

What causes the damage or destruction of the dopaminergic cells is still unknown, but there is evidence that (especially chronic) pesticide exposures may be at work. Both the herbicide paraquat and the pesticide rotenone have been identified as involved in the pathology of the disease. According to a 2018 research paper, “Estimated Residential Exposure to Agricultural Chemicals and Premature Mortality by Parkinson’s Disease,” people exposed to glyphosate have a 33% greater risk of premature mortality from Parkinson’s.

In experimental research on PD, exposures to neurotoxicants have repeatedly produced neuronal death, in both in vitro and in vivo systems. (Many such studies have used 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine [MPTP] because it reliably induces dopaminergic neurotoxicity.) The team administered, to four groups of adult male mice, “drinking water” that was variously treated: (1) water with only saline added, (2) water with glyphosate plus saline, (3) water with MPTP, and (4) water with glyphosate and MPTP, for 14 days. The brains were then evaluated immunohistochemically.

The researchers found that the exposures to glyphosate exacerbated the reduction of DAT (dopamine transporter) immunoreactivity in the striatum, and the reduction of TH (tyrosine hydroxylase) positive cells in the SNr after MPTP administration. Translation: the exposure to glyphosate appears both to worsen the ability of local neurons (in the SNr and striatum) to produce and transport dopamine effectively, and to intensify the neurotoxicity of other extrinsic chemicals (in this case, MPTP).

Based on this experiment, the research paper concludes, “Given the widespread and growing use of glyphosate in the world, it is likely that glyphosate exposure may increase [the] risk of the onset of PD later in life . . . . and may be an environmental risk factor for PD . . . although further study is needed. . . . Therefore we must pay attention to glyphosate exposure in adults.” Why the authors did not advocate “paying attention” to these exposures across the lifespan is puzzling, given that chronicity of exposure may build risk over time.

People are exposed to glyphosate directly, through handling and application; and indirectly, through residue in food or contamination of drinking water. So widespread is its use that exposure to it is nearly unavoidable in the U.S. Rural and vocational experiences seem to present particular risks: occupational pesticide exposure, farming, well water consumption, and residential pesticide use have all been linked to elevated rates of Parkinson’s Disease. The concerns about glyphosate exposure and health outcomes, whether PD, NHL (Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma), or other anomalies, are especially acute for those who encounter glyphosate regularly, typically through work and work sites.

In September, 2019, sixteen organizations representing health, environmental, farmer, and farmworker communities joined together to call on EPA to remove glyphosate from the marketplace. The groups cite a combination of high-profile lawsuits, environmental impacts, increasing reports of weed resistance, and growing public concern over the health effects of glyphosate in their comments on EPA’s interim reregistration review decision for the chemical. This new data adds to the heightened level of public health concern associated with glyphosate (Roundup) use.

Avoidance of exposure to glyphosate is best achieved in several ways: consuming organic food as much as practicable; avoiding use glyphosate products in home gardens or on lawns; paying attention to water quality reporting for local water supplies; encouraging farmworker protections; and advocating with supermarkets, garden centers and hardware stores, farmers, golf courses, school districts, and local and state decision makers for nontoxic, organic land management and agriculture. Follow Beyond Pesticides coverage of glyphosate through the Daily News Blog and the journal, Pesticides and You, and become a supporting member of an organization dedicated to information on pesticides, and advocacy on moving to less- and nontoxic practices for a safer world.

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

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304394020303025

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2020) Four banned organochlorine pesticides (OCP) are present in over 60% of a cohort of reproductive-age, black women in Detroit, according to a study published in Environmental Research by Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH). OCPs are lipophilic (fat combining/dissolving), environmentally steadfast chemicals linked to harmful health effects. This study stresses the importance of monitoring pesticide accumulation, particularly regarding environmentally persistent chemicals and their metabolization via indirect exposure routes. Lead author Olivia Orta, Ph.D., a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Epidemiology at BUSPH, highlights the significance of water monitoring—especially in light of historically disproportionately high hazards for people of color (e.g., Flint, Michigan)—and testing sources prone to OCP contamination. She remarks, “The sources that we identified as potential OCP correlates should be tested for pesticide contamination,[…] especially drinking water.”

Environmental contaminants, like organochlorine pesticides (OCP), can persist in the environment decades after use stops, as OCPs have greater chemical stability and gradual attenuation. Minority populations are at higher exposure risk of environmental contaminants (i.e., pesticide) exposure that can catalyze adverse health and birth effects, especially in metropolitan areas. Although black women endure higher body burdens than other U.S. populations, there remains a lack of research surrounding the association.

Boston University researchers enrolled participants using 2010-2012 baseline data from the Study of Environment, Lifestyle, and Fibroids (SELF) on black women, aged 23-35 years, in Detroit, Michigan (metropolitan area). Researchers collected “non-fasting” blood samples from 742 participants to analyze any correlates of OCPs in plasma concentrations. Additionally, data collected—via self-administered questionnaires, telephone interviews, and in-person clinic visits—analyzed various factors, including participants’ demographic, behavior, diet, occupation, and medical history. Linear regression models and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated the percent (%) difference among each OCP category and factor.

Over 60 percent of participants’ blood samples contain detectable levels of four OCPs: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (p,pʹ DDE), a metabolite of DDT; hexachlorobenzene (HCB); and chlordane metabolites oxychlordane, and trans-nonachlor. Adjusted regression models find correlations between age and plasma pesticide concentrations as 5-year age differences display 24% higher oxychlordane and 26% higher trans-nonachlor concentrations. Excessive alcohol consumption results in 7-9% higher p,pʹ-DDE, oxychlordane, and trans-nonachlor plasma concentrations. All four OCPs emerge in blood samples of participants who presently smoke. Smokers of ≤10 cigarettes/day exhibit 10–19% higher plasma concentrations, while smokers of ≥10 cigarettes/day having 22-29% higher plasma concentrations. Breastfed babies expressed 15% higher DDE, 14% higher oxychlordane, and 15% higher trans-nonachlor concentrations than non-breastfed babies. Women who drink five glasses of tap or bottled water per day have 8-15% higher concentrations of all four OCPs, principally trans-nonachlor. 

Although the U.S. banned DDT and most other highly hazardous OCPs by the late 1980s, some pesticides exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) guidelines for human subsistence on fish and wildlife, persisting in soil and water sediments, glacier meltwater runoff, and bioconcentrate in food webs. OCPs fail to attenuate in water—instead, they dissolve into body fat and linger for several years, adversely affecting the hormonal system, metabolic function, and brain development. Exposure to DDT and DDE, as endocrine disruptors, increase the risk associated with diabetes, early onset menopause, reduced sperm count, endometriosis, and obesity. HCB exposure can exacerbate the risk associated with cardiovascular disease, birth defects, obesity, and cancer. Past studies indicate both DDE and HCB exposure have multigenerational health effects on obesity and diabetes, with DDE uniquely augmenting multigenerational breast cancer occurrences. Climate change only threatens to exacerbate residual OCP exposure as global warming may affect OCP movement and concentration in the environment while weakening the ability of animals and humans to tolerate those chemicals.

EPA’s failure to address the long-standing effects of a once widely used pesticide is only the tip of the iceberg. This research highlights faults of environmental pesticide monitoring, which fails to account for alternative pesticide exposure routes—especially for biologically persistent OCPs—plaguing community health for over 30 years. BUSPH researchers find higher concentrations of OCP in the plasma of older participants born during, or after, pesticide removal from the market in the late 1970s and early-to-mid 1980s. However, the data also suggests tobacco, alcohol, and drinking water are identified sources of OCP exposure, and disproportionally affect African American women. In addition to previous studies indicating OCPs’ acute, chronic, and multigenerational impacts on human health, this research adds weight to exposure routes playing a significant role in promoting plasma pesticide concentrations high enough to cause adverse health effects. According to Dr. Orta, “If cigarettes, alcohol, and drinking water are in fact exposing black women to pesticides, this matters!” The data results send about health effects elevated by a combination of exposure to hazards, exacerbated by long-term exposures to pesticides and their metabolites in the environment.

We must have a full understanding of the etiology of pesticide-induced diseases before the chemicals are released into the environment. The harm that is ultimately associated with uncertainty should end through policy reform and the adoption of practices that eliminate toxic pesticide use. With far too many diseases in the U.S. associated with pesticide exposure, reducing pesticide use is a critically important aspect of safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities, particularly those that are minority and underserved. Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database is a great resource for additional scientific literature that documents elevated rates of diabetes as well as other chronic diseases and illnesses among people exposed to pesticides.

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

Source: Boston University School of Public Health, Medical Xpress

(Beyond Pesticides, May 13, 2020) A pilot study at New York University (NYU) provides evidence of a direct relationship between increased risk for celiac disease (adverse immune response to eating gluten) and exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including DDE – a metabolite of the infamous, bird-killing pesticide DDT. Researchers at NYU set out to elucidate the connection between the autoimmune disease and persistent organic pollutants (POPs), also known as “forever chemicals” or “legacy chemicals” due to their persistence in nature and the human body. The new research, published in Environmental Science, highlights higher odds for celiac disease among participants with elevated POPs exposure and differing results among male and female participants. Considering the complexity of these initial results, researcher Leonardo Trasande, Ph.D. says, “It’s not as if these chemicals were designed with the human body in mind; These chemicals were designed with materials in mind.”

[See video overview here]

Celiac disease produces an immune-mediated inflammatory response to the consumption of gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye, and barley. Risk for celiac disease has long been associated with genetic factors, but increased prevalence of the disease inspired further research. Considering previous studies on the deleterious impact of POPs on the immune system, scientists analyzed blood samples from 30 children and young adults (3-21) who had been recently diagnosed with celiac disease. They compared results to 60 other young people of similar demographics. The research focused on three chemicals: PBDE, DDE, and PFAS.

• Polybrominated di-phenyl ethers (PBDEs) are used as flame retardants in upholstered furniture, mattresses, and electronic products.
• P,p’-Di- chlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) is the main metabolite of di- chlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), an insecticide related to the decimation of bird populations in the 1960s. DDT was banned in 1972 after Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring raised awareness and sparked the modern environmental movement.
• Perfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances are used as surfactants and polymers for consumer products (such as nonstick cookware– famously, Teflon) and building materials.

Researchers found a statistically significant association between DDE and celiac disease after adjusting for confounding factors. Children and young adults with higher blood levels of DDE were two times as likely to be newly diagnosed with celiac. The study found sex-specific PFAS associations among females, and some specific associations among males. The authors caution that because of the small small size the results should not be extrapolated to the broader population. However, the researchers found substantial reason to further study the relationship between POPs and autoimmune diseases, especially among genetically susceptible individuals.

“Our study establishes the first measurable tie-in between environmental exposure to toxic chemicals and celiac disease,” says senior study investigator and pediatric gastroenterologist Jeremiah Levine, MD. “These results also raise the question of whether there are potential links between these chemicals and other autoimmune bowel diseases, which all warrant close monitoring and further study.”

This study adds to the body of evidence Beyond Pesticides has long catalogued regarding the negative impact that toxic chemicals have on human health. The current regulatory approach to pesticides and other persistent industrial chemicals is deeply flawed, as it relies on industry-provided research and does not take a precautionary approach. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quickly approves chemicals that can then persist in the environment and human bodies for decades or longer. This process disregards the value of long-term human and environmental health for short-term industry profit. What more, though the international community has made some movement to address the threat of POPs, the U.S. has not. Beyond Pesticides recently wrote, “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.'”

See more on endocrine disrupting pesticides at Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. Stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides’ response to governmental inadequacies by participating in our Action of the Week. Sign up for our Weekly News Update for the latest research, news, and policy updates.

Source: NYU Langone Health