(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

(Beyond Pesticides, May 12, 2020) California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) is issuing new enforcement guidelines intended to protect children and residents from toxic pesticides during the Covid-19 pandemic. With schoolchildren spending their time at home while in quarantine, many, particularly those in agricultural communities, are at increased risk of pesticide exposure. “During this public health crisis, it is important to ensure the strict enforcement and oversight of regulations that protect children from pesticide exposure,” Governor Newsom wrote in a letter to the state Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).

While much of the guidance simply reinforces current legal requirements, it places an emphasis on strict enforcement. County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs), the state’s primary enforcement officers for pesticide laws, must “strictly enforce all applicable health protections around homes and schools” during the pandemic, seven days a week. Further, it stresses that pesticide applications “are expressly prohibited,” when there is, “reasonable possibility of contamination of the bodies or clothing of persons not involved in the application.” The state will prioritize the investigation of any violations made in residential areas.

The state will also “take a strict approach to assessing penalties.” Violations of pesticide law that occur near homes or schools during coronavirus quarantine will be considered “Class A” violations and will carry fines at the highest level. To wit, CACs are instructed to “charge a separate violation for each person with an acute illness from pesticide exposure caused by the violation.”  These directions could see violators assessed with fines up to $5,000 per person per incident.

Because many schools will continue to stay open for meals and student take-home lessons, the guidance does not waive recent state requirements instituted to require buffers for highly toxic pesticide use near schools sites. “It remains critical for the state to protect children and families from pesticide exposure including through the strong protections California has in place for school sites,” the Governor wrote. In addition to maintaining the school site provisions, the state is encouraging applicators to extend prior notification for all pesticide use near homes.

Lastly, California regulators are encouraging residents to make use of the state’s free App, which allows for anonymous reporting of pesticide incidents. This tool is particularly helpful for farmworkers and those in the agricultural industry, as it is illegal to be fired after reporting a pesticide incident through the App.

Environmental groups are applauding the move as a step in the right direction. Enforcement during this crisis is critical to the protection of children and those with pre-existing immune or respiratory ailments that may be exacerbated by pesticide exposure, and make them more susceptible to the impacts of the virus.

The Governor can go further to protect the health of children, farmworkers, and residents throughout the state. By ordering a halt to the use of cosmetic lawn care pesticides, California would prevent the need for voluntary notification and reduce pressure on enforcement activities. Cosmetic use is unnecessary and non-essential; applications near homes and neighboring properties put children and residents at risk.

Further precautions are also needed for farmworkers and their families. Enforcement priorities for residential areas should be extended to field conditions for farmworkers. With personal protective gear in short supply, the state must ensure that no farmworker be forced to apply a pesticide without proper gear, and all label requirements met.

During this time of immense upheaval, we must plan for the future while protecting ourselves from immediate threats to health and safety. Supporting organic farms, and ensuring government follows suit, is a critical part of this long term planning.

Take action to encourage your state to prioritize health over pesticide use by sending a letter to your Governor urging them to stop the cosmetic use of pesticides during the Covid-19 outbreak. You can also stand up for farmworkers by telling Congress to provide additional benefits for these essential workers. Read more about the dangers pesticides pose to children through Beyond Pesticides’ Children and Schools webpage.

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

Source: CalEPA press release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2020) Protecting ourselves from Covid-19 requires not only that we avoid contact with the virus, but also that we avoid exposing ourselves to chemicals that may disrupt our immune or respiratory systems. But when it comes to pesticide products—and disinfectants are pesticides—we encounter once again the problem of so-called “inert,” or nondisclosed, ingredients.

Tell EPA and Congress that ALL Ingredients in Pesticides Must Be Disclosed.

“Inert” ingredients are not necessarily chemically or biologically harmless. “Inert” or “other” ingredients—as distinguished from “active” ingredients—are generally the majority of the product formulation that makes up the liquid, spray, dust, or granule, but does not specifically attack the pest, according to the manufacturer. They include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, aerosol propellants, fragrances, and dyes. Many “inerts” are quite toxic, and may be “active” ingredients in other products. “Inert” ingredients may also be described as “adjuvants” or “formulants.” “Inerts” are typically not listed on the label, and hence are often called “secret ingredients.”

Beyond Pesticides reviews the disinfectants on EPA’s List N, which are approved for use against the novel coronavirus, but it is only possible to review the active ingredients. One product on the list, for example, contains 99.7784% “other ingredients.” Unfortunately, although this product may contain mostly water, it also may be composed mostly of such “inert” ingredients as 4-chlorotoluene, ethylbenzene, or petroleum distillates, all of which (among others) can weaken the respiratory and/or immune systems, making an exposed person more susceptible to Covid-19. We don’t know.

While it has never been acceptable to hide product ingredients on pesticide products, the current pandemic makes this information crucial for consumers who want to protect themselves and their families. Whether it is disinfectants or pesticide products in use in the home, yard, and community the secrecy on this public health issue must end, and EPA has the authority to require labeling . Please urge EPA use its legal authority to require disclosure of all ingredients on pesticide labels to protect public health.

Tell EPA and Congress that ALL Ingredients in Pesticides Must Be Disclosed.

Letter to EPA Administrator and Office of Pesticide Program Director

I am writing you because the current pandemic has brought home to me the importance of disclosure of all ingredients in pesticide products that can exacerbate the public’s vulnerability to Covid-19. Protecting ourselves from Covid-19 requires not only that we avoid contact with the virus, but also that we avoid exposing ourselves to chemicals that may disrupt our immune and respiratory systems. But when it comes to pesticides—and disinfectants are pesticides—I encounter the problem of so-called “inert” ingredients.

“Inert” ingredients are not necessarily chemically or biologically inert. Many are quite toxic, and may be “active” ingredients in other products. “Inert” or “other” ingredients—as distinguished from “active” ingredients—are simply those for which the pesticide manufacturer does not make a pesticidal claim. “Inerts” are typically not listed on the label, and hence they are “secret ingredients.” They include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, aerosol propellants, fragrances, and dyes.

In deciding on a disinfectant to use in my home, I review products on EPA’s List N, which are approved for use against the novel coronavirus, but it is only possible to review the active ingredients. One product on the list, for example, contains 99.7784% “other ingredients.” Unfortunately, although this product may contain mostly water, it also may be composed mostly of such “inert” ingredients as 4-chlorotoluene, ethylbenzene, or petroleum distillates, all of which (among others) can weaken my respiratory and/or immune systems, making me more susceptible to Covid-19. I don’t know because “inert” ingredients are not disclosed.

While it has never been acceptable to hide product ingredients on pesticide products, the current pandemic makes this information crucial for consumers who want to protect themselves and their families. Whether it is disinfectants or pesticide products in use in the home, yard, and community the secrecy on this public health issue must end, and EPA has the authority to require labeling. Please require disclosure of all ingredients on pesticide labels as a matter of public health protection.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representative

I am writing you because the current pandemic has brought home to me the importance of disclosure of all ingredients in pesticide products that can exacerbate the public’s vulnerability to Covid-19. Protecting ourselves from Covid-19 requires not only that we avoid contact with the virus, but also that we avoid exposing ourselves to chemicals that may disrupt our immune and respiratory systems. But when it comes to pesticides—and disinfectants are pesticides—I encounter the problem of so-called “inert” ingredients.

“Inert” ingredients are not necessarily chemically or biologically inert. Many are quite toxic, and may be “active” ingredients in other products. “Inert” or “other” ingredients—as distinguished from “active” ingredients— are simply those for which the pesticide manufacturer does not make a pesticidal claim. “Inerts” are typically not listed on the label, and hence they are “secret ingredients.” They include emulsifiers, solvents, carriers, aerosol propellants, fragrances, and dyes.

In deciding on a disinfectant to use in my home, I review products on EPA’s List N, which are approved for use against the novel coronavirus, but it is only possible to review the active ingredients. One product on the list, for example, contains 99.7784% “other ingredients.” Unfortunately, although this product may contain mostly water, it also may be composed mostly of such “inert” ingredients as 4-chlorotoluene, ethylbenzene, or petroleum distillates, all of which (among others) can weaken my respiratory and/or immune systems, making me more susceptible to Covid-19. I don’t know because “inert” ingredients are not disclosed.

While it has never been acceptable to hide product ingredients on pesticide products, the current pandemic makes this information crucial for consumers who want to protect themselves and their families. Whether it is disinfectants or pesticide products in use in the home, yard, and community the secrecy on this public health issue must end, and EPA has the authority to require labeling.  Please urge EPA to require disclosure of all ingredients on pesticide labels, as a matter of public health protection.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2020) At the height of Covid-19 impacts in the Northeast U.S., Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker (R) and Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito (R) filed emergency legislation at the Boston State House that would, according to their April 16 press release, “help the Commonwealth more effectively combat diseases transmitted by mosquitoes, including arboviruses like Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) and West Nile Virus (WNV), by authorizing a coordinated, proactive, statewide approach to mosquito control activities.” Protecting the public from such diseases is an important public health mission. However, the Governor’s bill, H.4650, represents an alarming “over-reach” that would give unitary authority to the State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board (SRMCB) to conduct mosquito control activities, including ineffective and toxic spraying, with virtually no effective oversight or transparency. Beyond Pesticides opposes this bill, whose passage would enable use of pesticides that can have respiratory and immune impacts — increasing health risks for everyone, but especially for the many people already at higher risk from Covid-19, despite the availability of ecological management approaches that eliminate the need for toxic chemicals.

H.4650, An Act to mitigate arbovirus in the Commonwealth — was promulgated in response to a Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) determination that 2020 may bring mosquito-borne arboviruses — which can cause diseases, such as EEE and WNV — to the state, although at what levels and where are now neither known nor predictable. The state saw 12 human cases of EEE and four deaths from the rare infection in 2019; EEE was also confirmed in nine livestock animals. Outbreaks of EEE typically last for two or three years.

Most people who contract EEE have either no or mild symptoms (e.g., fever, joint or muscle ache), but severe infections can cause swelling of the brain (encephalitis) or meninges (meningitis), as well as flu-like symptoms. In some cases, seizures or coma may ensue; approximately one-third of people who develop encephalitis with EEE die, and some who do survive have significant neurological disabilities. West Nile Virus is asymptomatic in many people, and may cause illness in roughly 20% of those infected, with 1.5% of people developing serious illness (and occasionally, dying from WNV).

Despite the extraordinary power given to the state board in this legislation to engage in “eradication methods as it deems necessary in any area of the Commonwealth,” experts are clear that surveillance for arboviruses is critical to defining a restrained program that does not engage in widespread spraying. More critically, effective mosquito management integrates rigorous monitoring and surveillance, elimination of breeding sites, enhancing habitat for mosquito predators, biological controls of mosquito larvae, and public education. The absence of monitoring of arboviruses in parts of the state that do not belong to regional mosquito control districts means there is inadequate data on the presence of the viruses in mosquito populations — making it difficult to develop risk assessments and plan mitigation activities. The SRMCB oversees all mosquito control activities in Massachusetts, including those conducted by regional mosquito control districts and projects, but at present has no authority to conduct mosquito control activities independently in communities that do not belong to a mosquito control district.  

Notably, the bill itself is unusually — and perhaps alarmingly — brief. This is the entire text of H.4650 (the first paragraph is an “Emergency Preamble”):

“Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is forthwith to make a certain change in law to allow the Commonwealth to immediately respond to the significant public health risks associated with the transmission of arbovirus from mosquitoes to humans, such change being immediately necessary to carry out to accomplish important public purposes, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health and convenience.

SECTION 1. Chapter 252 of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 2 the following section:
Section 2A. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary and upon the written determination of the commissioner of public health that an elevated risk of arbovirus exists or may exist for the following year, the board, in consultation with the department of public health, may engage in preventative and eradication methods as it deems necessary in any area of the Commonwealth. In carrying out its authority under this section, the board may act through any district or project duly organized under this chapter, other agencies of the commonwealth [sic], and may employ other professionals as the board deems necessary. All actions taken under the authority of this section shall be designed to protect public health while minimizing to the extent feasible any adverse impact to the environment.”

Commentary and Analysis

It is difficult not to have the impression that H.4650 was assembled in great hurry and without the informed consideration more typical of proposed legislation. The critiques of the bill that follow here will provide evidence that supports that impression.

H.4650 was referred by both the Massachusetts Senate and House to the legislature’s Joint Committee on Public Health on April 21; it is scheduled for a hearing on May 11. Senate President Karen Spilka said, in the Governor’s office press release, “I believe we need a comprehensive, coordinated, and systematic approach to tackling EEE and we must ensure that approach covers all corners of the Commonwealth.” The administration cites the need for better data, and a comprehensive approach across the state in protecting public health, which sounds reasonable enough, given the health threat represented by EEE, especially.

Beyond Pesticides, Mass Audubon, the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC), and others oppose this bill, and offer a variety of critiques of it. The administration’s press release notes that the bill would permit SRMCB to “engage in mosquito control activities across the Commonwealth . . . when the Commissioner of Public Health determines that an elevated risk of arbovirus exists” — without setting any parameters for what “elevated risk” means. The bill would allow the commissioner to determine “that an elevated risk of arbovirus exists or may exist for the following year,” [emphasis by Beyond Pesticides] on which determination the SRMCB would then be able to act.

Critics expect that the bill will result in an over-reliance on insecticide spraying as a mosquito control measure. Beyond Pesticides has long maintained that spraying pesticides to kill adult mosquitoes (“adulticiding”) is not only ineffective, but also, dangerous. The chemical pesticides used in such spraying (as well as those used in homes and gardens, and in food production) can exhibit a variety of toxic effects in humans, including compromise of respiratory and immune systems.

The most common insecticides used currently are organophosphates and pyrethroids, both of which have broad toxicity for nontarget species, including fish, birds, and amphibians. The health (and environmental) toxicity of these chemicals is a worry in “normal” times, but in this pandemic time, it is especially concerning because use of adulticiding chemicals elevates the risks related to infection with Covid-19 — which has harmful impacts on human immune and respiratory systems. Indeed, the only reference to potential impacts in the text of the bill is this: “All actions taken under the authority of this section shall be designed to protect public health while minimizing to the extent feasible any adverse impact to the environment.”

The preemptive nature of the bill is also worrisome. In testimony submitted to the Joint Committee on Public Health on May 4, Mass Audubon’s Legislative Director, Michael Cusher, said that the bill supersedes the mandates of all other state statutes and special laws, including Massachusetts’s Open Meeting Law and Public Records Act — both of which serve as vehicles of transparency and accountability for the public’s benefit. If passed, H.4650 would also trump local bylaws and regulations that may have been created to deal with such risks in a locally appropriate manner.

Beyond Pesticide has written, “Such power, without accountability to the public and independent science, would preempt local communities from disagreeing with state-level decisions around pesticide use, and override local opt-out agreements made by private residents.” Currently, Massachusetts residents in a municipality that belongs to a regional mosquito control district can request and receive “nuisance spraying” on their private property at will. Residents are also able to exempt their properties from such spraying, but as many critics have complained, such exemption is relatively ineffective because sprayed pesticides can drift well off their target parcels.

Mass Audubon also warns that any number of other laws protective of human and environmental health could be “overridden or ignored, without accountability or disclosure.” Those could include the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act, the state’s Pesticide Control Act, and/or the Wetlands Protection, among others. A Mass Audubon Advocacy Blog entry points out that the bill has no expiration date and provides no opportunity for input on SRMCB control activities from affected communities or landowners.

Kyla Bennett, the New England Director, and Director of Science Policy, for PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), outlined a host of reasons for opposing H.4650. Echoing many of the concerns of Beyond Pesticides, Mass Audubon, and Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC) (see next paragraph), the list includes:

• the bill is far too broad and represents significant over-reach
• the bill has no sunset provision
• it would pre-empt municipal decision making (e.g., not to join a regional district to avoid nuisance spraying), as well as overrule private property requests for spraying exemptions
• it does not account for environmental impacts of widespread adulticiding (or other strategies)
• it fails to address public health implications of broad-scale spraying, especially on vulnerable populations
• DPH has not undertaken any analysis of how and why EEE has achieved such geographic spread in the state

The MACC issued a May 1 legislative alert to its members setting out its opposition to the bill. It also submitted a letter to the chair of the Joint Committee on Public Health citing its concerns and recommendations for modifications. Those concerns are: (1) the breadth and pre-emptive nature of the bill, (2) the lack of transparency about how decisions would be made, and eclipse of any role for local boards of health and environmental groups, (3) the absence of requirements for community and property owner notification of control measures, (4) the lack of information or mention of either the efficacy of adulticiding or inadvertent impacts on organisms and ecosystems, and (5) the lack of a sunset provision.

MACC’s recommendations include: (1) adding DPH and Department of Fish and Game to SRMCB; (2) requiring 48-hour notification to communities prior to spraying; (3) annual reporting of plans, programs, and results, and an annual public review process; (4) requiring use of IPM (Integrated Pest Management) plans with an emphasis on surveillance, public education, and ecologically based methods; and (5) enabling communities to sign up for surveillance and data services without accompanying pesticide application services.

Beyond Pesticides and Mass Audubon agree that Massachusetts needs to reform its existing monitoring and mitigation systems, which are supposed to protect the public from risks of EEE and WNV; Mass Audubon calls them “antiquated and fragmented.” Beyond Pesticides asserts that the state should — rather than authorize SRMCB to “spray toxic pesticides anywhere in the state at any time” — focus on supporting local efforts to eliminate breeding sites, manage mosquito larvae through biological controls, and conduct public education on prevention strategies. Pesticide use should be considered only as a last resort. H.4650 neither suggests nor requires that such a program of safer protocols be implemented before SRMCB could implement “eradication methods as it deems necessary in any area of the Commonwealth.”

There are far better approaches than the one this legislation would enable, and resources with which to identify and implement them — for policy makers and the public — abound. Legislators and executives can avail themselves of the 2012 Beyond Pesticides and National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides publication, Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy for Decision Makers and Communities, a comprehensive guide to effective and safe mosquito control for public health strategies. The Xerces Society offers How to Help Your Community Create an Effective Mosquito Management Plan. Beyond Pesticides provides online resources on its Resources page and its Tools for Change page, which provides factsheets, position statements, and organizing tips for local communities.

Beyond Pesticides issued a May 7 Action Alert on this bill for Massachusetts residents. If you live in Massachusetts, please use it to add your voice in opposing H.4650 and advocating for an approach that is more effective, less sweeping in its reach, and safer for residents of the Commonwealth, especially during this pandemic.

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

Sources: https://www.mass.gov/news/baker-polito-administration-files-legislation-to-combat-mosquito-borne-diseases-in-the and https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H4650

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2020) On April 22, 2020, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals granted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 90 days to respond to Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) petition requesting cancellation of tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP), a toxic organophosphate pesticide in pet products. The order followed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to grant NRDC’s petition for a writ of mandamus (a court’s order requiring a lower court or public authority to perform its statutory duty) as EPA withheld action to fulfill NRDC’s judicial review of TCVP, for over a decade. A favorable ruling on NRDC’s mandamus petition can influence other petitioners that hope to coerce agency action, especially when public health is at risk. The court states, “Repeatedly, the EPA has kicked the can down the road and betrayed its prior assurances of timely action, even as it has acknowledged that the pesticide poses widespread, serious risks to the neurodevelopmental health of children.”

NRDC petitioned EPA to cancel TCVP pesticide registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in April 2009, after studies indicated humans absorb TCVP through contact with pesticide-treated pet products. EPA failed to respond to the initial petition after five years, and NRDC filed a 2014 mandamus requiring EPA to issue a response. EPA’s response denied cancellation of TCVP pesticide registration, seven months later. NRDC filed a 2015 lawsuit challenging EPA decision as the council found rejection of the petition to be unlawful. However, 2016 litigation results compelled EPA to reevaluate TCVP safety and found adverse risks to people, especially children. Although EPA completed a final risk assessment in 2016, the agency failed to ban residential TCVP use in pet products. On May 29, 2019, NRDC – yet again – petitioned for mandamus in the Ninth Circuit, pursuing EPA’s final response to NRDC’s 2009 petition. 

Ninth Circuit U.S. Appeals Court determined whether delays in EPA’s response to NRDC’s petition warranted mandamus support. The court ascertained approval for NRDC’s mandamus petition using six-factor standards, or “TRAC factors”: 

1. The time agencies take to make decisions must abide by a rule of reason. (Courts deem a reasonable time frame for agency action in week or months, not years);
2. Congress has provided a time frame it expects the agency to establish a law, that legal scheme may supply content for this rule of reason;
3. Delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake;
4. The court should consider the effect of expediting delayed action on agency activities of a higher or competing priority;
5. The court should also consider the nature and extent of the interests influenced by delay;
6. The reasoning behind the lack of agency activity does not need to be malicious for the court to determine a delay in agency action irrationally. 

TRAC factors analyzed similarities between the current NRDC petition, and three prior petitions, within the last five years – two of which also involved different organophosphates.

The court ruling approved NRDC’s petition for a writ of mandamus on all six TRAC factors. Reasonableness of EPA’s delay was the most important factor, as over a decade passed since NRDC’s initial petition. EPA only acted when provoked by NRDC or courts and consistently missed set deadlines. Although EPA maintained that the agency accomplished sensible progress during the lapsed time-period, the court concluded that whether delays are from 2009 or 2017, “EPA has stretched the ‘rule of reason’ beyond its limits.” The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that all six-factors favored approval for writ of mandamus and granted NRDC’s request. The action ordered EPA to deny NRDC’s petition against TCVP or initiate a cancellation of TCVP within one year.

Over 85 million people in the U.S. have pets, and many of these pets wear flea collars containing TCVP. Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) is an organophosphate pesticide subgroup and derivative of World War II nerve warfare agents. Although TCVP use in household products concludes in 2006, one TCVP product remains on the market for residential use in pet products. TCVPs accumulate on pets’ fur via pet products (i.e., pest-prevention collars, shampoos, and sprays), and exposure to humans causes neurological damage and cancer. Also, children are most susceptible to TCVP poisoning as they are underdeveloped and more likely to ingest TCVP by touching their mouths after pet interaction. Since 50% of lifetime pesticide exposure transpires in the first five years of life, children are at disproportionate risk, and risk enhances when exposure occurs early in life. EPA’s 2016 risk assessment of TCVP corresponds with prior conclusions that TCVPs adversely affects human health, disproportionally affecting child health. 

The ruling is the Ninth Circuit’s fourth issuing of a writ of mandamus on delays in federal agency action in the past five years. Approval of this mandamus and predecessors alludes to the court’s weakening patience for significant delays in agency action on pesticide tolerance and registration. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals criticizes EPA’s postponed action as it, “frustrated NRDC’s ability to seek judicial review by withholding final agency action, all the while endangering the well-being of millions of children and ignoring its ‘core mission’ of ‘protecting human health and the environment.’” The success of NRDC’s mandamus action can encourage ecological and advocacy organizations to use mandamus more assertively to drive federal agency action for various petitions.

In addition to flea and tick collars exposing humans to TCVP, dietary exposure via water and food ingestion is an alternate toxicity pathway for TCVP through livestock use. There are also numerous occupational risks of exposure, affecting applicators, veterinarians, pet groomers, and livestock caretakers.

Safely kill flea and tick larvae with non-toxic solutions: vacuum daily during flea season (changing bag often); groom pet daily with a flea comb (cleaning comb with soap-water between brushes); frequently bathe pets with soap and water; and frequently wash pet bedding, restricting pet to only one bed. Learn more about how to protect your pet from pesticides, and the least-toxic controls for flea and tick infestation. 

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

Source: JDSUPRA, NRDC, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2020) The Trump Administration announced late last month that it is waiving a requirement that multinational chemical company Syngenta-Chemchina continue to monitor Midwest waterways for the presence of the weedkiller atrazine throughout 2020. While rationalized by the Administration as “due to the unanticipated impact of Covid-19,” the move will instead put residents health at increased risk. Atrazine is one of 78 pesticides that has been linked to the development of respiratory ailments like wheeze.

“The public will now have no idea whether dangerous levels of atrazine are reaching rivers and streams throughout the Midwest. That’s absurd and reckless,” said Nathan Donley, PhD a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Syngenta should suspend the sale and use of this extremely toxic pesticide until it can safely ensure it’s not polluting Corn Belt waterways.”

Syngenta, which merged with state-owned China Nation Chemical Corporation (Chemchina) in 2016, has been bound by EPA to monitor Midwestern waterways since a 2004 review by the agency. This is because atrazine is a potent groundwater contaminant. Just two years ago, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found atrazine to be exceeding legal limits in drinking water for many Midwestern states.

Even though monitoring programs are critically important tools, they show only a snapshot in time, as prior reports found that atrazine can spike at extremely high levels that go undetected by regular tests. Rapid influx of atrazine weedkiller into drinking water systems during springtime found birth defects linked time of conception. As a result of its endocrine disrupting properties, the chemical has also been linked to breast cancer.

Atrazine causes significant impacts to the health of aquatic ecosystems, reducing productivity of phytoplankton and causing trophic level cascades. It has been known to harm frogs, and increase susceptibility to chytrid fungi that are implicated in global amphibian declines. Seminal research on atrazine’s ability to cause male frogs to develop female body parts was attacked by Syngenta as part of a long-running smear campaign against independent science.

In 2016, EPA found high risks to ecological health from atrazine exposure.  However, under the Trump administration, the agency proposed to increase allowable levels of atrazine in US waterways.

A Syngenta-ChemChina request for a complete elimination of the monitoring program last year was denied due to ongoing concerns over ecological health. That did not stop the company from trying again for a temporary waiver during the coronavirus public health crisis. By granting this temporary waiver, environmental groups argue that the agency is not reducing a regulatory burden, but instead exacerbating an already existing public health crisis at the worst time possible.

“Now is the time to protect people and the environment, not multinational chemical companies,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Send a message to EPA that it’s time to follow Europe’s role in effectively banning atrazine. Sign the petition to ban this endocrine disrupting pesticide from continuing to harm children and wildlife. Research finds that banning atrazine will provide an economic benefit to farmers –the exact type of economic stimulus needed in this time of crisis. With knowledge of organic practices, which economically benefit farming communities, becoming more widespread, the time is now to transition to a safer, healthier food system for all.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2020) The coronavirus pandemic highlights pre-existing cracks in social safety nets and environmental regulation. Pollutants, such as respiratory and immune-suppressing toxic pesticides, exacerbate the risk factors for people already vulnerable to Covid-19. Decades of environmental racism and other health factors are contributing to the devastating fact that in the U.S. black and brown communities are disproportionately impacted by this crisis. These same communities make up the bulk of frontline, essential workers; grocery store employees, security staff at hospitals, bus drivers, farmworkers, and others are keeping our country going through the pandemic. Government and corporation responses have been insufficient to help these individuals. As a society, we need to better support workers who are essential, and not expendable.

Farmworkers, the backbone of our entire food system, are at extremely high risk of COVID-19 as well as pesticide poisoning due to crowded working conditions and lack of personal protective equipment. As agribusinesses ask farmworkers to work for less pay in the midst of the pandemic, they need your help.

Giving Tuesday Now is a national donation campaign responding to the pandemic. While Giving Tuesday traditionally encourages donations to non-profits in November, today there is a push to encourage financial assistance to groups that need it most, now. Beyond Pesticides suggests supporting frontline organizations.

You can contribute directly to farm and food workers through these organizations:

• Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), Midwest and North Carolina, through CMMJ
• Farmworker COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Fund
• Farmworker Association of Florida
• National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) Immigrant Worker Safety Net Fund
• Indigenous Environmental Network
• Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC) Relief
• Restaurant Workers Community Foundation
• One Fair Wage Emergency Fund

Consider donating to your foodbank or joining a mutual aid program

• Grassroots coalitions and local aid groups such as foodbanks are stepping up to the plate. Find your local food bank here. See this database to find a local mutual aid group, or learn how to start your own.

As the economic system goes into a dramatic downturn and workers fear for their lives, the agrichemical industry and the Trump Administration’s EPA are taking advantage of the chaos to further deregulate the poisons going into our food and water systems. This is why our work cannot rest. Now, more than ever, we need to stop community pesticide uses, not only because of they elevate risk factors, but because they are not necessary with all the green alternative practices and products we have at our fingertips.

The elimination of toxic pesticide use protects biodiversity and supports clean air, water, and land. Organic practices enhance atmospheric carbon sequestration, which slows global temperature change and allows for a livable future. The road to recovery from the crash of global biodiversity, the coronavirus pandemic, and the climate crisis should center organic practices that promote healthy communities and ecosystems.

To this end, Beyond Pesticides’ Autumn Ness is working in the Maui Community to advocate for local food systems change. She and other local advocates successfully collaborated to get $2.5 million that would have gone from the county budget to tourism redirected to support local farmers. Ms. Ness has also helped create a food hub for farmers to connect with residents. This is a model for the country and we adjust to a ‘new normal’ after we get the pandemic under control.

Donate to Beyond Pesticides and Make Sure the Road to Recovery is Organic

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

Please consider making a donation at any level to frontline organizations and Beyond Pesticides. With your support, we will get through this pandemic and continue to fight for policies that support human and environmental health.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2020) Exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act allow children to work unlimited hours in agriculture at the age of 12 and allow child farmworkers to perform hazardous work at the age of 16. These exemptions apply only to farm labor and are significantly less stringent than law applying to other sectors. U.S. Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard of California has reintroduced H.R. 3394, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety (CARE) to correct these inconsistencies, which harm farmworker children.

Tell your Congressional Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 3394. Thank those who are co-sponsors of the bill.

Currently, children ages 12-13 may not be employed outside the home in non-agriculture labor, but may work in agriculture outside of school hours. Children ages 14-15 may work in non-agriculture only with strict limitations on time of day and hours per week, but may work in agriculture outside of school hours without any restrictions. The minimum age for hazardous work in agriculture, such as pesticide handling, is 16, but is 18 for non-farm labor. H.R. will make the restrictions for agriculture child labor consistent with non-agriculture labor. The bill does not apply to the sons and daughters of farmers working on their family farm.

The worker protection standard (WPS) is an EPA regulation that includes restrictions to protect farmworkers applying pesticides. In 2015, the WPS was revised to set a minimum age of 18 for pesticide application. In 2018, after being sued for not implementing the minimum age requirement, EPA proposed lowering the age to 16. EPA dropped its proposal to lower the age for pesticide handlers after negotiating with Congress. Despite EPA’s reversal, a change in the statute such as that proposed in H.R. 3394 would prevent the agency or the courts from allowing 16-year-olds to be hired to apply pesticides in the future.

Children of farmworkers are those most threatened by this discrepancy. The health of children of farmworkers is at risk in other ways from the use of toxic pesticides. Doctors annually diagnose up to 20,000 poisonings among agricultural workers – and that statistic only represents what is publicly reported. Working mothers are exposed to chemicals that can have long-lasting impacts on their unborn children, such as brain function damage. As a result of their working conditions, farmworker life expectancy is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. This is similar to the life expectancy of individuals living in the 1850s. We need to correct the injustices suffered by farmworkers and their families.

Tell your Congressional Representative to co-sponsor H.R. 3394. Thank those who are co-sponsors of the bill.

Letter to Congress – Request to Cosponsor

I am writing to ask you to cosponsor H.R. 3394, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety, which will make the protection of children on farms consistent with that of children working in non-agricultural work.

Exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act allow children to work unlimited hours in agriculture at the age of 12 and allow child farmworkers to perform hazardous work at the age of 16. These exemptions apply only to farm labor and are significantly less stringent than law applying to other sectors. Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard of California has reintroduced H.R. 3394, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety (CARE) to correct these inconsistencies, which harm farmworker children.

Currently, children ages 12-13 may not be employed outside the home in non-agriculture labor, but may work in agriculture outside of school hours. Children ages 14-15 may work in non-agriculture only with strict limitations on time of day and hours per week, but may work in agriculture outside of school hours without any restrictions. The minimum age for hazardous work in agriculture, such as pesticide handling, is 16, but is 18 for non-farm labor. H.R. 3394 will make the restrictions for agriculture child labor consistent with non-agriculture labor. The bill does not apply to the sons and daughters of farmers working on their family farm.

Children of farmworkers are those most threatened by this discrepancy. The health of children of farmworkers is at risk in other ways from the use of toxic pesticides. Doctors annually diagnose up to 20,000 poisonings among agricultural workers – and that statistic only represents what is publicly reported. Working mothers are exposed to chemicals that can have long-lasting impacts on their unborn children, such as brain function damage. As a result of their working conditions, farmworker life expectancy is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. This is similar to the life expectancy of individuals living in the 1850s. We need to correct the injustices suffered by farmworkers and their families.

Please cosponsor H.R. 3394, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Thank You Letter to Current Cosponsors

I am writing to thank you for co-sponsoring H.R. 3394, the Children’s Act for Responsible Employment and Farm Safety, which will make the protection of children on farms consistent with that of children working in non-agricultural work.

Children of farmworkers are those most threatened by the current discrepancy. The health of children of farmworkers is at risk in other ways from the use of toxic pesticides. Doctors annually diagnose up to 20,000 poisonings among agricultural workers – and that statistic only represents what is publicly reported. Working mothers are exposed to chemicals that can have long-lasting impacts on their unborn children, such as brain function damage. As a result of their working conditions, farmworker life expectancy is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. This is similar to the life expectancy of individuals living in the 1850s.

We need to correct the injustices suffered by farmworkers and their families.

Thank you for your support.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2020) As the globe settles in for a long summer of social distancing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, experts warn that concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), more commonly referred to as “factory farms,” are setting the table for the next pandemic. Crowded conditions and prophylactic use of antibiotics, scientists say, are creating an environment ripe for viruses and bacteria to evolve and jump from animal to human populations. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations said back in 2013, “Livestock health is the weakest link in our global health chain.” Alternatively, organic principles offer an existing federal guideline for ecologically and environmentally viable conditions for agriculture.

Michael Greger, M.D., Ph.D., author of Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, explains, “When we overcrowd animals by the thousands, in cramped football-field-size sheds, to lie beak to beak or snout to snout, and there’s stress crippling their immune systems, and there’s ammonia from the decomposing waste burning their lungs, and there’s a lack of fresh air and sunlight — put all these factors together and you have a perfect-storm environment for the emergence and spread of disease.” Dr. Greger notes that the spread of industrialization, or “Tysonization,” of poultry production in Asia has been tied to the explosion of novel bird flu viruses beginning in the 1990’s.

Viruses and bacteria proliferating in the food system have worried epidemiologists for years. “When I was writing my book, I asked my sources what keeps them awake at night. They usually had two answers: virulent avian influenza and highly drug-resistant forms of bacterial pathogens,” Sonia Shah, author of Pandemic (2017), told Vox. “Both those things are driven by the crowding in factory farms. These are ticking time bombs.”

Pathogens can quickly rip through a barn of crowded animals, so farms give livestock low doses of antibiotics to preemptively suppress bacteria (the subtherapeutic administration of antibiotics also causes animals to gain weight more quickly). In the tight and ripe conditions of a CAFO, an antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria is likely to evolve under the selective pressure of the given medicine. “We have abundant evidence documenting the fact that when you put animals in crowded, unsanitary conditions and use low-dose antibiotics for disease prevention, you set up a perfect incubator for spontaneous mutations in the DNA of the bacteria,” Robert Lawrence, Ph.D., a professor emeritus of environmental health at John Hopkins University, told Vox. “With more spontaneous mutations, the odds increase that one of those mutations will provide resistance to the antibiotic that’s present in the environment.” The presence of the antibiotic provides strong selection pressure favoring the mutation, should it arise.

The same antibiotics given to animals are used by humans to fight infections. Should an especially infectious and resistant bacteria pop up and pass to humans, doctors might not have an appropriate toolkit to deal with it. As we are experiencing with coronavirus, social distancing would be the means of preventing the spread.

Lax regulatory standards for animal agriculture in the U.S. make it difficult for federal inspectors to get onto farms and investigate disease outbreaks. Lance Price, Ph.D., explained to 60 Minutes, “You’ve got these big, in some cases, multinational companies, that are messing with our food safety system. But they hide behind this image of an American farmer. ‘Why can’t we regulate the use of antibiotics on the farm?’ ‘Oh, we’ve gotta protect the American farmer. That would be encroachment by the government.’ ‘Why can’t we test these animals on the farm to see if they’re carrying dangerous pathogens?’ ‘Oh, that would hurt the farmer. We gotta protect the guy in the overalls.’ But this is not a guy in overalls. This is a guy in a suit with a Maserati, you know? I mean…these are big companies that we are protecting. And by protecting them, we’re hurting ourselves.”

While most Americans say they want more stringent oversight of large-scale livestock operations, little has been done to mitigate the issue in chemical-intensive agriculture. In contrast, USDA organic standards have prohibited the use of antibiotics since the 1990’s. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is guided by principles in the Organic Foods Production Act that prevent the harmful and unnecessary use of pharmaceuticals and provide humane, spacious living conditions for animals.

However, as consumers have bought into more stringent organic standards, the industry has grown and captured the eye of big agriculture. Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong and OrganicEye programs highlight the need to keep a close eye on regulation in this arena. Advocates note, for example, that consistent enforcement of the access to pasture rule, including identification of high risk dairy operations, such as those with more than 1,000 milking and dry cows, is needed to meet USDA’s Farm Bill and legislative principles priority to “Protect the integrity of the USDA organic certified seal and deliver efficient, effective oversight of organic production practices to ensure organic products meet consistent standards for all producers, domestic and foreign.”

Another critical issue within organic standards centers on the Organic Livestock and Poultry Production rule. Last year, in an attack on organic integrity, USDA decided to withdraw final organic animal welfare regulations that would have provided standardized and measurable criteria for managing the health and welfare of organic livestock and poultry. Beyond Pesticides reported then, “These increasing organic rollbacks, many of which threaten to break the backbone of organic, have inspired the creation of two organic-plus labels, complete with their own inspection and certification systems. Both the Real Organic Project and Regenerative Organic Certification plan to use USDA’s organic certification as the foundation of their labels and then add-on crucial organic provisions that have been revoked or not yet addressed by USDA.”

While the coronavirus pandemic and its fallout have the general public wishing for things to return to normal, advocates say it is crucial to recognize that “normal” is exactly what caused the multitude of crises we face right now. “Normal” means more pandemics in the future. The road to recovery needs to be organic. Keep track of Beyond Pesticides action on this topic with our action of the week and tell your U.S. Senator to cosponsor the Farm System Reform Act.

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

Source: Vox

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2020) Chemical-intensive farming of crops for animal fodder powers the global market for highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), according to data analyzed by Unearthed, and the Swiss NGO Public Eye. Animal fodder production not only intensifies global pollution, but it also increases pesticide exposure and degrades human, animal, and environmental health. This data analysis supports advocates advancing pesticide policies to eliminate HHPs by identifying which toxic chemicals lead global pesticide sales. However, it will take more than eliminating the worst chemicals to address the impending biodiversity collapse and the climate crisis, according to experts who point to the need for an urgent shift to organic land and agricultural management practices. United Nations’ (UN) special rapporteur on toxic substances and human rights, Baskut Tuncak, says, “There is nothing sustainable about the widespread use of highly hazardous pesticides for agriculture. Whether they poison workers, extinguish biodiversity, persist in the environment, or accumulate in a mother’s breast milk, these are unsustainable, cannot be used safely, and should have been phased out of use long ago.” 

Unearthed and Public Eye investigated over $23 billion in global pesticide market sales to determine the proportion of pesticides considered highly hazardous by the Pesticide Action Network’s (PAN) International 2019 list of HHPs. HHP hazard categories include acutely toxic, chronic health hazards, environmental hazards, and toxic to bees. Data analyzers obtained global market sales information from the leading agribusiness intelligence firm, Phillips McDougall. Top-selling pesticide products were in the pesticide industry’s most valuable “market segments” (e.g., “herbicides for soya in the US”). Analysts compared global HHP sales data in 12 staple crop groups to determine which crops provided the largest market for major pesticide manufacturers. 

Highly hazardous pesticides amassed $9.9 billion in global sales with maize (corn), soybean (soy), cereal, cotton, and rice accounting for over $4 out of every $5 spent on HHPs. The investigation identified 19 chemicals as premier selling HHPs. Glyphosate was the most commonly sprayed HHP across all five crops. Atrazine and epoxiconazole were HHPs present in grain crops like rice and cereals, respectively. Over 69% of pesticide sales for cotton crops were HHPs, 44% of which were toxic to bees. Although nearly half of all global HHP spraying was on soybean and maize, staple crops in animal fodder, soybean provided the biggest market for HPPs by value. 

Land use data displays ~50% of all global habitable land as agricultural, with over 75% of all farmland supporting livestock fodder and grazing. Agricultural land is subject to chemical-intensive farming, and many fodder crops (i.e., corn and soy) use HHPs to manage pests. Globally, farmers use glyphosate to manage corn and soy crops more than any other HHPs. However, 93% and 85% of soy and corn, respectively, are genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate glyphosate. Glyphosate-resistant crops increase herbicide use, enhance herbicide-resistant weeds (i.e., superweeds), and cause health and environmental harms. Multiple studies indicate glyphosate’s carcinogenic effects in humans, as well as adverse impacts on ecosystem biodiversity, pollinators, foraging/brooding habitats, and pest / bacterial resistance. Most corn and soy crops are monocultures,  wherein demands for fodder exceed requests for diverse crop production. Perversely, monoculture crops induce biodiversity loss and pollinator decline via pesticide exposure and habitat destruction. 

The data indicates which crops represent the largest markets for major pesticide manufacturers. North American soybean crops provide the largest market for all pesticides, but analysts project South America to dominate soy production in 2020. Already, over 50% of all HPP sales for soybean crops go to Brazilian soy fields. Brazilian farmers spend large amounts on HHP to overturn vast amounts of land for soy monocultures, according to Larissa Bombardi, Ph.D., professor of geography at the University of Sao Paulo. Additionally, over 90% of developing soy crops are GE for glyphosate-resistance. An increase in Brazilian soybean monocultures, GE soy crops, and intensive HHP use present health and environment threats, including threats to local food security. Dr. Bombardi mentions, “In addition to driving deforestation and increased use of pesticides, this [HHP] industry was also having ‘an impact on food security.’ …Brazil [saw] a reduction in the amount of land planted with ‘the four crops that are the basis of national food:’ wheat, cassava, rice, and beans.”

Chemical-intensive farming contributes to HHP global market sales as farmers apply various herbicides and insecticides to many staple fodder crops. International sales of HHPs pose a serious global health risk as 18 out of 19 analyzed HHPs are available in the U.S. pesticide market for use. Most Americans want stricter oversight of general large-scale livestock operations. The analyzed data can provide global implications for pesticide management surrounding agriculture while supporting oversight restriction and elimination of HHP-treated fodder. Organic agriculture has many health and environmental benefits, which curtail the need for HHPs. Regenerative agriculture revitalizes soil health through organic carbon sequestration while reducing pests and generating higher profits than chemical-intensive agriculture. Learn more about the adverse health and environmental effects chemical-intensive farming poses for various crops and how eating organic produce reduces pesticide exposure.

See Beyond Pesticides webpage on organic agriculture.

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

Source: Unearthed

(Beyond Pesticides, April 29, 2020) The terrible reputation with which bats are commonly saddled — especially now, because of their association with the origins of the family of coronaviruses — is undeserved. These nocturnal insect vacuums are fascinating, flying mammals that are under-appreciated, not least for their performance of important services for ecosystems, and for human health and agriculture. Investigators from Israel’s Ben-Gurion University and the Section for Evolutionary Genomics at Copenhagen’s Natural History Museum recently published a study demonstrating that bats can be a mighty tool against pests that damage cotton crops. Bats’ pest control services — relatively invisible because they do their insect marauding at night when humans are not watching — represent an excellent, nontoxic, biological control for some agricultural pests, as well as for mosquitoes that may be human disease vectors. Advocates say that these services should be well considered before any decision to use toxic pesticides that can harm bats, as Beyond Pesticides has covered.

The study, “An appetite for pests: Synanthropic insectivorous bats exploit cotton pest irruptions and consume various deleterious arthropods,” was published in Molecular Ecology. [Note: “synanthropic” species are those plants or animals that live near, and benefit from, association with humans and the habitats people create around or in response to them.] The subject of the study is a small bat, Kuhl’s pipistrelle (Pipistrellus kuhlii), which roosts and forages in such habitats: urban, exurban, and agricultural areas. The research, undertaken in cotton fields in central Israel, looked at this bat’s consumption habits by studying trace DNA of its prey in the bat’s droppings.

The scientists were particularly interested in P. kuhlii’s consumption of a notorious cotton crop pest, the pink bollworm — a formidable threat in much of conventional cotton growing because it can easily develop resistance to the pesticides marketed for use with genetically modified cotton seeds. It seems that Kuhl’s pipistrelle loves the pink bollworm: as bollworm populations swelled, the bats preferred and ate more of them than of any other insect species. The scientists concluded that these bats exploit pink bollworm irruptions by opportunistic feeding, and that the bats provide “important pest suppression services.” Professor Carmi Korine, Ph.D., one of the study paper’s authors, notes: “We should be aware of the functional importance of common species of bats in urban environments for ecosystem functioning and human society. . . . particularly now, when bats are negatively and often unjustifiably stereotyped due to COVID-19.”

The study’s conclusions underscore the importance of bat species and their services. Bats are the only nocturnal insect predator in the U.S., and are one of two primary nocturnal pollinators (along with moths) — important roles for night-flowering plants and for farmers. The two species of brown bats (the “big” and the “little”) most common in the U.S. are voracious, consuming 3,000–7,000 insects per night. In some regions, these creatures also provide fertilization through deposits of their guano; notably, there is a thriving commercial fertilizer industry that uses guano as a primary ingredient.

As mentioned, bats consume mosquitoes that can carry diseases to humans, such as West Nile virus, Eastern equine encephalitis, Zika virus, malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and others. Many localities and states continue to use aerial pesticide spraying (“adulticiding”), as well as some biological controls and source reduction measures, not only in declared public health emergencies, but also and too often, for “nuisance control.” Pesticide use to control mosquito populations is misguided, at best, because of its harmful impacts on human health, ecosystems, and the very organisms that prey on mosquitoes, and because it is often ineffective. There are alternatives to spraying toxic pesticides for mosquito control.

A 2011 study in the journal Science estimates that bats provide annual pest control services to agricultural operations worth between $3.7 and $53 billion. Bats are also considered an “indicator species,” meaning that  they interact with many elements of their ecosystems, and that their well-being is a barometer for the health of those ecosystems.

Bat populations in some regions are shrinking alarmingly due to myriad threats, including pesticides, habitat destruction, and white-nose syndrome (WNS), a fungal disease to which several cave-dwelling bat species are particularly susceptible. WNS first spread through bat populations in the eastern U.S. and Canada, but has now expanded as far as the West Coast. In some areas, bat species have lost 90% of their local populations to the disease. WNS causes bats to behave uncharacteristically — waking up more frequently during the winter, and flying during the day, and thus, using up their limited fat reserves too quickly, leaving them debilitated. Estimates of bat losses to WNS range from 5 to 7 million since the onset of the fungal disease in 2006.

Bats are also vulnerable to pesticide exposures through their dusky and nocturnal foraging for insects that may have been sprayed by pesticides or may have fed on pesticide-treated plants. Because bats are unusually long-lived for animals their size — lifespans range from 20 to 40 years — their bodies can accumulate pesticide residues over a long period, exacerbating adverse effects associated with those pesticides that can accumulate in fatty tissue. Also, during migrations or winter hibernation (when their fat stores are metabolized), bats’ consumption of large volumes of pesticide-contaminated insects can mean that these compounds may reach toxic levels in their brains — making them more susceptible to WNS. Bats also tend to have only one offspring each year, making them vulnerable to the population impacts of negative reproductive effects caused by pesticides, because low reproductive rates require high adult survival rates to avoid population declines.

Beyond Pesticides will continue to advocate for pollinator species, including bats. There are many ways that the public can support these inky and slightly chimerical creatures, and protect them from pesticides. Learn more at Beyond Pesticides’ pollinator protection page, Hedgerows for Biodiversity fact sheet, and alternatives to spraying page.

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

Sources: https://www.israel21c.org/bats-arent-all-that-bad-just-ask-israeli-cotton-crops/ and https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mec.15393

(Beyond Pesticides, April 28, 2020) Roughly a quarter of the global insect population has been wiped out since 1990, according to new research published in the journal Science. Billed as one of the most comprehensive assessments to date, the study finds significant overall insect declines, but notes of some specific bright spots. While variation in the ongoing crisis is to be expected, ultimately the trends in the data show the need for immediate policy and regulatory action to protect the insect world as the foundation of global food webs.

The team of European scientists behind the research analyzed 166 studies spread out over 41 countries, and consisting of over 1,600 sites, with data beginning in the mid-1920s. Overall trends found declines in terrestrial insect biomass to be nearly 1% each year (~9% each decade). However, contrasting this data was a bright spot – freshwater insects were found to be increasing at an annual rate just over 1% (~11% each decade). The authors caution, however, that because fresh water covers only 2.4% of the earth’s surface, the increase may not be a good spatial representative of broader trends.

While North America appeared to show more significant declines when compared to Europe, there is some cause for alarm as more recent data shows an acceleration of insect losses on the European continent. “Europe seems to be getting worse now – that is striking and shocking. But why that is, we don’t know,” said study coauthor Roel van Klink, PhD, to The Guardian. One large and important confounder is the dearth of research from South America, Africa, and much of Southeast Asia.  

Further analysis of the data on freshwater insects points to legal protections playing a role in the increase, such as the U.S. Clean Water Act and similar legislation in Europe. Protected areas such as nature preserves did display less significant declines, however the difference was not as robust as researchers expected. “We found that very striking and a bit shocking – it means something’s going wrong there,” said Dr. van Klink to The Guardian.

There was little evidence that climate change was playing a role at either local or global scales, however land use and urbanization was found to have moderate associations with declines. The anthropogenic factors with this trend – pesticide use, light pollution, habitat destruction, are massively under-regulated and can be addressed by elected officials.

While the attempt by researchers and some scientific minds to use this study to present the insect apocalypse as nuanced is of course accurate, it risks pushing the discussion into one where the public is told it is too “complicated” and that more research is needed before action is taken. Powerful industry forces – from the agrichemical industry, to fossil fuel producers, construction companies, and other groups with considerable lobbying arms, make use of scientific nuance, “mystery,” and the need for more data by presenting it as a reason for inaction. While in Europe the precautionary approach holds sway, in the United States many elected officials will opt for inaction unless the data is certain and the public is overwhelmingly in favor of change (and even then, as many advocates know, the road is uphill).

Make no mistake – the public should continue be alarmed by these reports. As renowned entomologist Dave Goulson, PhD, told The Guardian, “People should be as concerned as ever about insects. It is great news that some aquatic insects seem to be increasing, probably from a very low level. But the bulk of insects are terrestrial and this new study confirms what was already clear: they have been declining for many decades.”

It is likely that the declines we are seeing in many bird species are closely linked to insect declines. Recent research finds that three billion birds, or 29% of bird abundance has been lost since the 1970s. This is also a nuanced finding – waterfowl and raptors have increased more than 50% since that time – likely for similar reasons – there was real legal and regulatory action taken to protect these species. The nuance is a reason for urgent action now, not for further delay.

Insects remain in significant decline. Monarchs are near extinction and beekeepers continue to experience declines that are putting them out of business. We continue to lose mayflies, the foundation of so many food chains, and fireflies, the foundation of so many childhood summer memories, for reasons that can be easily prevented with strong laws and leadership. We can stop pesticide use and habitat destruction endangering mayflies, bees, and monarchs and stop light pollution by preserving the night sky for fireflies.  

For more information on the insect apocalypse, see Beyond Pesticides article in our Pesticides and You newsletter, Tracking Biodiversity: Study Cites Insect Extinction and Ecological Collapse.

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

Source: Science, The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, April 27, 2020) Federal guidance and orders by most Governors have identified “landscaping” as an essential activity that is permitted in spite of stay at home or shelter in place requirements.

Tell Your Governor that Lawn Care Pesticides are Not Essential and Increase Risk of COVID-19.

Most states follow some variation of guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum on Identification of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers During COVID-19 Response, in determining which industries are “essential” and can therefore remain in operation. DHS guidance identifies as essential, “Workers such as plumbers, electricians, exterminators, builders, contractors, HVAC Technicians, landscapers, and other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintaining the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences, businesses and buildings such as hospitals, senior living facilities, any temporary construction required to support COVID-19 response.”

While some of the services provided by landscapers and exterminators may be necessary to maintaining safety, sanitation, and essential operations, pesticide application for cosmetic lawn care purposes is not. The hazards of pesticides may be amplified during this pandemic. Threats to the immune and respiratory systems posed by pesticides are likely to make those exposed more susceptible to the coronavirus. Governors should designate as essential outdoor maintenance, including vegetation, only when necessary to prevent spoliation, avoid imminent damage, or address emergency repairs. No pesticide application is essential unless it is necessary to address a public health emergency.

Tell Your Governor that Lawn Care Pesticides are Not Essential and Increase Risk of COVID-19.

Letter to Governor

As you seek to protect residents of our state from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important that you allow essential work to continue, but do not allow activities that may make us more susceptible to the disease.

Most states follow some variation of guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “Memorandum on Identification of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers During COVID-19 Response,” in determining which industries are “essential” and can therefore remain in operation. DHS guidance identifies as essential, “Workers such as plumbers, electricians, exterminators, builders, contractors, HVAC Technicians, landscapers, and other service providers who provide services that are necessary to maintaining the safety, sanitation, and essential operation of residences, businesses and buildings such as hospitals, senior living facilities, any temporary construction required to support COVID-19 response.”

While some of the services provided by landscapers and exterminators may be necessary to maintaining safety, sanitation, and essential operations, pesticide application for cosmetic lawn care purposes is not [bp-dc.org/landcare]. The hazards of pesticides may be amplified during this pandemic. Threats to the immune and respiratory systems posed by pesticides are likely to make those exposed more susceptible to the coronavirus [bp-dc.org/coronavirus].

Please designate as essential outdoor maintenance, including vegetation, only when necessary to prevent spoliation, avoid imminent damage, or address emergency repairs. No pesticide application is essential unless it is necessary to address a public health emergency.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 24, 2020) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevent (CDC) has released a study showing a sharp increase—62% in some cases—in calls to poison hotlines about exposures to toxic household cleaners and disinfectants. This poisoning comes with the advent of the novel Coronavirus pandemic, as public health and government officials, and many media outlets have sensibly recommended that people regularly disinfect “high touch” surfaces and objects in their homes and other surroundings, but have not issued warnings on toxic effects nor the availability of lower toxicity or least-toxic products. Compliance with cleaning (sanitizers) and disinfection recommendations is an important public and personal health undertaking, but in this Covid-19 rigor lies a poison problem: the toxicity, as Beyond Pesticides has explained, of some cleaning and disinfecting products that are permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for sale and use. There are safer ways to disinfect those light switches, TV remotes, doorknobs, faucets, etc.

First, a basic distinction between cleaning (also called sanitizing)and disinfecting: EPA offers definitions of the differences. “Cleaning is done with water, a cleaning product, and scrubbing. Cleaning does not kill bacteria, viruses, or fungi, which are generally referred to as ‘germs.’ Cleaning products are used to remove germs, dirt, and other organic material by washing them down the drain.” Disinfectants, on the other hand, “are chemicals that work by killing germs. These chemicals are also called antimicrobial pesticides.” The admonitions to disinfect began in earnest in March 2020, as states, localities, and federal agencies, such as CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the National Institute of Health’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) ramped up messaging about such disinfection.

The CDC study monitored call frequencies about such exposures for the January through March 2020 period, and found elevations in such calls compared with the same periods in 2018 and 2019. Call data were taken from the National Poison Data System (NPDS), the CDC, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers, to which calls to local poison control centers are reported. The study analysis shows a 20.4% increase in calls related to exposures to household cleaners, and a 16.4% increase in those for disinfectant exposures.

The study reports that, “The daily number of calls to poison centers increased sharply at the beginning of March 2020 for exposures to both cleaners and disinfectants.” Calls about exposures to bleach products represented 62% of the increase from 2019; inhalation was the primary exposure route in all three years, and clocked in with a 108.8% increase, 2020 over 2019, for products in the disinfectant category.

The study co-authors note that the actual exposure incidents were likely higher than the reported call numbers because undoubtedly, not everyone who is exposed reports to a poisoning hotline. In addition, no absolute correlation between incident call spikes and Covid-19 messaging could be made because hotlines did not inquire if the exposure was a function of Covid cleaning or disinfecting. But the co-authors believe the correlation between increased poisoning reports and increased use of these products “was likely because the timing corresponded to the increase in media coverage of the coronavirus, as well as stay-at-home orders and other instructions from public health officials.”

The researchers also acknowledge that insufficient vigilance over children’s access to these products is part of the story, as it always is in household poisonings of children. Although increases in poisonings happened across all age groups, “exposures among children aged ≤5 years consistently represented a large percentage of total calls in the 3-month study period for each year.” David Gummin, M.D., the medical director of the Wisconsin Poison Center, commented, “With every American trying to stay Covid-free, people are not only utilizing cleaners and hand sanitizers at record rates, but also trying to identify alternate mechanisms to keep things sanitized. The important thing is to keep them locked up and out of the reach of children.”

The study report also warns that mixing certain compounds can accidentally create dangerous chemical compounds and gases, as one study subject did when she combined bleach and vinegar, making toxic chlorine gas. It should be noted that chlorine gas, when inhaled, can combine with moisture in the lungs to create hydrochloric acid, which can cause severe damage to lungs; inhalation of other gases, through which many household exposures occur, can also damage lungs. Other “no go” mixtures of common household cleaning products include: ammonia + bleach, which creates toxic chloramine vapors; bleach + isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol, which yields chloroform; and hydrogen peroxide + vinegar, which creates corrosive parecetic acid.

No one wants to use products that can threaten health, of course. But what EPA — which regulates antimicrobial surface disinfectants — considers safe is best viewed with circumspection. EPA has a long history of permitting use of chemical pesticide compounds that pose risks to human health, including children’s, as well as to the health of other organisms and ecosystems. In late March, EPA’s pesticide program allowed 70 new disinfectants to be marketed and sold — on top of the 281 disinfectants previously permitted. The agency did so primarily by relaxing oversight on so-called “inert” or other ingredients that are not disclosed on product labels and are often highly toxic.

Beyond Pesticides wrote, late in March, about the use of disinfecting products during the pandemic: “There is tremendous pressure to use toxic disinfectants, despite the availability of safer products. In fact, while [CDC] is recommending 70% alcohol for surface disinfection, [EPA’s] Office of Pesticide Programs is advising the use of unnecessarily toxic substances, and reducing standards that govern their allowance on the market.” See the Beyond Pesticides website page, “Protecting Yourself from Covid-19 (coronavirus) without Toxic Sanitizers and Disinfectants,” which spells out a number of the compounds to be avoided.

During this Covid-19 pandemic, people need to be especially cautious about the safety of their environments, including the safety of products introduced to households. In reducing the risk of any viral (or bacterial) infection, it is important that the precautions taken don’t increase health risks to anyone, but certainly, to the more vulnerable, such as those with underlying health issues, immunocompromised people, and older folks.

There are other practices, outside of individual households, that represent particular risks during this pandemic. For example, pesticides used for turf management, mosquito control, or agricultural pests can have negative impacts on respiratory function. Given that the Covid-19 virus tends to attach itself especially to receptors in the lungs, heart, and gastrointestinal tract, those with premorbid lung conditions, or cardiopulmonary or cardiovascular diseases (and other conditions), may be at particular risk that should not be exacerbated through such exposures.

Services that homeowners might usually use, such as those that apply lawn chemicals or mosquito or tick control chemicals, should not be used; likewise, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides used to control garden pests should be avoided. Beyond Pesticides recently sued the chemical applicator company, TruGreen, for misrepresenting the safety of the toxic chemicals with which it treats lawns. It also urged states to identify the spraying of toxic chemicals in or near residential areas (e.g., for agricultural purposes, lawn treatments, or mosquito control) as non-essential and hazardous, noting that “widespread exposure to lawn pesticides, which are immune system and respiratory toxicants, can elevate serious risk factors associated with Covid-19.” Eliminating such applications during the pandemic crisis can reduce exposures to compounds that may worsen impacts of infection with this virus.

Beyond Pesticides recently identified farmworkers as another group of people at higher risk during the pandemic because of their vocational exposures. Such workers are exposed through their jobs to pesticides that are respiratory irritants linked with asthmatic conditions — making them less likely to recover if they do contract Covid-19. In addition, agricultural enterprises that use pesticides are facing the same shortages of PPE (personal protective equipment) that the healthcare community is experiencing, so many farm workers go wanting for PPE. This population also often works, and sometimes lives, in very close proximity, making social distancing an impossibility. Workers in other sectors, including frontline healthcare workers, may be enduring analogous exposures to toxic disinfectants, pesticides, and other “control” chemicals.

Members of the public can “arm” themselves in fighting the novel Coronavirus with good information on protective protocols, and safer disinfection products. See more in the factsheet, “Protecting Yourself from Covid-19 (Coronavirus) without Toxic Sanitizers and Disinfectants.” That would, presumably, reduce the number of poisonings happening through people’s efforts to disinfect. One of the study co-authors, Dr. Diane P. Calello, said, “Educating people about what is safe is the key, but I have a hunch the numbers will go up in April.”

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

Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-poison-hotlines-rise-in-accidents-disinfectants.html and https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6916e1.htm

(Beyond Pesticides, April 23, 2020) Pesticide spray drift from adjacent farmlands expose butterfly larvae to lethal pesticide concentrations, according to research published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry by Iowa State University (ISU). Lack of previous experimental pesticide toxicity data makes it unclear as to what degree insecticides impact monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) productivity in milkweed (Asclepias spp.) habitats near pesticide-treated pasture. This study adds weight to the idea that pesticides are playing a role in the ongoing decline of this iconic butterfly, as researchers find insecticide drift from adjacent fields to be strongly associated with larval mortality. Future monarch butterfly conservation efforts should consider risks stemming from pesticide exposure when developing butterfly rehabilitation efforts, according to advocates. As co-author Niranjana Krishnan (ISU graduate student) states, “In order to make the best decisions about how and where to plant milkweed, we first need to find basic toxicity and exposure data.” 

ISU researchers established monarch butterfly colonies by collecting larvae from roadside milkweeds, which they then reared in the laboratory for incubation. To analyze the relative toxicity of various insecticides on monarch butterflies, researchers applied normal field-application rates of each pesticide at different larval development stages. Scientists used a bioassay to measure the cellular concentration of foliar insecticides (insecticides applied directed to plant leaves) exposed to monarchs by cuticular (dermal) or dietary means. They chose five common active chemical ingredients in foliar insecticides used on soybean and corn crops: beta‐cyfluthrin (pyrethroid), chlorantraniliprole (anthranilic diamide), chlorpyrifos (organophosphate), and imidacloprid and thiamethoxam (neonicotinoids). Researchers compared the bioassay’s concentration-response curves to AgDRIFT computer-modeled pesticide spray data to determine in-situ larval mortality rates downwind from treated fields.

Results of the study found that dermal and dietary exposure to beta-cyfluthrin and chlorantraniliprole was most toxic to monarchs, and resulted in high levels of larvae stasis and mortality. Notably, neonicotinoid exposure uniquely halted monarch ecdysis (molting) and pupation from caterpillar to butterfly. ISU researchers estimated the greatest larval mortality to occur 0 to 15 meters (m) downwind of pesticide-treated soybean/maize fields. Aerial pesticide applications extended larval mortality range to 60m downwind of treated fields compared to boom pesticide spray applications. This study demonstrates that data and field-scale mortality estimates will help scientists elucidate the impacts of pesticides on monarchs and establish sustainable habitats.

The monarch butterfly is fighting an uphill battle against the harmful effects of pesticides. Sharp declines in the butterfly population present a poor prognosis for monarchs, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicate an extinction risk of 86% within 50 years. Pesticide exposure and lodging availability are key to survival during larval development. Previous studies indicate threats to the survival of the milkweed plant monarchs rely on for lodging and larval development. Genetically engineered (GE) soybean and corn crops tolerate repeated exposure to herbicides, and researchers attribute spray drift from weed killers like glyphosate to milkweed extermination in many agricultural areas of the country. 

This study indicates that pesticide exposure indirectly affects monarch populations by interrupting larval development and success rate. The reproductive success of monarch butterflies depends on milkweed availability as monarchs require milkweed to complete its lifecycle. Milkweed acts as an obligate host for monarchs to exclusively lay their developing larvae on leaves and stems. Researchers suggest planting an additional 1.3 to 1.6 billion milkweed stalks will improve monarch butterfly resilience. Milkweed grows most successfully on agricultural land, yet the study finds that pesticide drift from adjacent maize and soybean pastures threaten the obligate host’s survival.  

Monarch butterflies need improvements in protection policies to safeguard reproductive success and decrease pesticide drift exposure. The data in this study has implications for a multitude of butterfly species and their exposure to pesticides upon the establishment of additional milkweed conservation habitats. Organic land management curtails the need for toxic agricultural pesticides. Learn more about the science and resources behind pesticides’ pollinator impact and take action against the use of pesticides. To find out more about what you can do to protect butterflies, and other pollinators, check out information on pollinator-friendly landscapes, pollinator-friendly seeds, and organic agriculture.

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

Source: Iowa State University

In 1962, Rachel Carson said we stood at a crossroads:

“The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road — the one less traveled by — offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of the earth.”

Eight years later, on April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day encouraged collective action for conservation. Now, in the midst of a pandemic and cascading environmental crises (arguably, down the road of disaster), forging a new path toward restoration will take courage and imagination. This Earth Day, Beyond Pesticides is putting forth a toolkit to abandon half measures and forge ahead with an organic approach for repairing human health and the environment.

LISTEN TO SCIENCE

Biodiversity is plummeting worldwide. The climate crisis looms even as COVID-19 grabs headlines. Environmental pollution is a predictor of coronavirus death. Never has it been more obvious that the global community is interconnected, and enforcing preventative measures is critical before it is too late. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ignores science, moving ahead with deregulation to the benefit of industry.

While it is unlikely that federal regulation will change for the better during this administration, it is nonetheless critical to keep an eye and voice on this issue and advocate for science.

>>Tell EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to follow the advice of scientists and do his job. Tell your Congressional representatives to support scientific integrity at EPA and other agencies. 

THINK HOLISTICALLY INSTEAD OF CHEMICAL-BY-CHEMICAL

Rachel Carson’s activism led to the ban of the toxic pesticide DDT, and bird populations consequently rebounded. However, Ms. Carson’s call to action was never just about DDT, and despite the many Earth Day celebrations since 1970, 3 billion birds have been lost and 57% of bird species are currently on the decline. Single-chemical bans are insufficient and short-sighted to the scope and scale of the crises we face.

Not only is it grossly inadequate to only consider reduction in a global, disastrous freefall, advocates also highlight that toxic chemicals are unnecessary for food production, pest mitigation, and lawn care.

The coronavirus pandemic is heightening the pesticide problem: chemical-intensive agriculture is now especially dangerous for the vulnerable farmworkers who feed us, and chemical lawn care is an unnecessary attack on the health of a respiratory distressed and immunocompromised population.

>> Protect Farmworkers: Tell Congress to provide essential benefits to essential workers.

THE ROAD TO RECOVERY IS ORGANIC

The elimination of toxic pesticide use protects biodiversity and supports clean air, water, and land. Organic practices enhance atmospheric carbon sequestration, which slows global temperature change and allows for a livable future. See Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming, which concludes that it is possible to sequester more than 100% of current annual CO₂ emissions by switching to organic management practices, which are referred to in the paper as “regenerative organic agriculture.”

The road to recovery from the crash of global biodiversity, the coronavirus pandemic, and the climate crisis should center organic practices that promote healthy communities and ecosystems.

>>Tell Congress to Help Organic Farmers Hurt by the Pandemic

Click here for images to share on social media

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

P-22 is being treated for mange; blood tests found anti-coagulant rodenticides, commonly known as rat poison.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 21, 2020) Last week, the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously to give mountain lion populations in certain parts of the state temporary protective status, and initiate a year-long study to consider permanent safeguards. Mountain lions in California are under considerable threat from a range of issues, including inbreeding, human developments, and the use of hazardous rodenticides. “There’s an extraordinary urgency for action to preserve this population,” said Commissioner Samantha Murray prior to the unanimous vote, according to the OC Register.

According to a study published last year in the journal Ecological Applications, mountain lion populations in Southern California’s Santa Ana and Santa Monica Mountains are at risk of local extinction within 50 years without intervention. Highways and other man-made structures have hemmed in the cougars, resulting in inbreeding that threatens genetic diversity and can result in sterile offspring.  Although specific actions under the new status are not guaranteed, it will force changes within California executive agencies.

“For Caltrans, this could include building wildlife crossings over or under existing freeways or as part of freeway expansion projects,” J.P. Rose, staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, the environmental group that petitioned the state for protections, told the OC Register. “For the Department of Pesticide Regulation, this may include re-evaluation of the use of deadly rat poisons in mountain lion habitat.”

Rodenticide use poses a serious risk to the dwindling populations of mountain lions in Southern California. In early 2019, a mountain lion dubbed P-47, living in the Santa Monica Mountains, was found dead by the National Park Service after exposure to rat poison.  “It’s unfortunate to see an otherwise healthy mountain lion lost from what appears to be human causes,” said Seth Riley, a wildlife ecologist with the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area to the LA Times. “In P-47’s case, it’s also a big loss because we don’t believe he had yet mated and passed along his genes, which would have been valuable since he had ancestry from north of the Santa Monicas.”

In 2018, another three-year old mountain lion, P-55, infamous for its ability to crisscross California’s 101 Freeway, died of suspected rodenticide poisonings, shortly after another cougar, P-41, was found dead with six different pesticides detected in its liver.  A similar rodenticide poisoning nearly killed mountain lion P-22, which, for a time, roamed the Hollywood Hills along Griffith Park’s Hollywood sign.

These poisons, used to kill voles, rats, and other rodents, work their way up the food chain, posing risks at each trophic level. A study published in 2018 found that chemicals like bromadiolone, a second generation rodenticide, can in fact function as “super-predators” within ecosystems by limiting prey to other predators, and making the prey that is available hazardous to their health. “Controlling voles with bromadiolone reduces the amount of food available to predators and increases their risk of secondary poisoning when they eat the contaminated rodents,” said study coauthor Javier Fernandez de Simon, PhD.

Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity took steps to sue the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) over its continued allowance of four rodenticides. Information published by CDPR finds evidence of rodenticides in 88% of bobcats and 90% of mountain lions tested.

 Broader restrictions are also being advocated in the state legislature. AB 1788, which banned the sale of second generation rodenticides, came close to passage last year but was ultimately withdrawn after intense lobbying from chemical companies.

The new protections are an important means to move forward regulations that will protect mountain lions and other threatened predators in the state of California. There are wide range of alternatives to hazardous rodenticides for the management of common pest problems. For more information on how you can do your part to protect local wildlife from unnecessary poisoning, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage. And for additional data on the threats pesticides pose to mountain lions and other species, see our webpage on Wildlife.

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

Source: The OC Register

(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2020) As USDA takes public comments on its updated dietary guidelines, it important that sustainable, regenerative organic food production practices are an integral part. Since 1990, Congress has required an every-five-years review of its Dietary Guidelines — recommendations intended to promote public health and prevent chronic diseases. The next review and a draft updated version, the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is currently underway.

USDA says that the dietary guidelines provide “information that helps Americans make healthy choices for themselves and their families.” In order to make healthy food choices, the guidelines must go beyond the traditional parameters to include how the food is produced. How food is produced affects the health of Americans not only as a result of the nutritional quality of the food, but also due to environmental contamination.

Sign the petition to USDA and send a letter to Congress. Tell them that organic food must be emphasized in new dietary guidelines.

Although research on the nutritional density of organic produce is equivocal, showing some higher levels of antioxidants, results are decidedly clear for animal products. Pastured organic animal products—including beef, lamb, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs—have been shown to be superior to that of products of chemical-intensive crops and confined animals in their distribution of fatty acids.

The differences to consumers go beyond nutritional value. Organic food is generally free of residues of pesticides and antibiotics. Pesticide residues are found in 70% of the food sold in the U.S., and residues of antibiotics are common in nonorganic milk. These residues may not exceed EPA tolerances, but lower levels may still have health effects. EPA does not take into account the combined effects of different pesticides that may occur on an item of produce (or in a meal), which often exceed the sum of the residues. It does not take into account the combined effects of all the ingredients of a single pesticide product. Despite a requirement in the Food Quality Protection Act that EPA implement screening of pesticides for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by 1999, pesticides are still not evaluated for their endocrine disruption potential, which can occur at levels far below those that cause the effects for which EPA tests.

Among the endocrine disruptors that are particularly relevant in the context of these guidelines are obesogens. As stated in an article by Drs. Amanda Janesick and Bruce Blumberg, “Recently, EDCs have been implicated in metabolic syndrome and obesity. Adipose tissue is a true endocrine organ and, therefore, an organ that is highly susceptible to disturbance by EDCs. A subset of EDCs, called ‘obesogens,’ promote adiposity by altering programming of fat cell development, increasing energy storage in fat tissue, and interfering with neuroendocrine control of appetite and satiety.”

In addition to the direct impacts of pesticide food residues on consumers, chemical-intensive agriculture contaminates air, water, and land, affecting the health of Americans in other ways. Pesticides in the air can aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems. Pesticides run off into streams and leach into groundwater, contaminating drinking water. Farmworkers should also be protected by these food guidelines because their health is threatened by the poisons that are applied to fields where they work.

Organic food production sequesters more carbon in the soil than conventional chemical-intensive agriculture, helping to mitigate climate change. Health hazards of climate change range from injury and death from a higher frequency of more severe storms to northward migration of tropical diseases and their insect vectors.

USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic–pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife.

The updated dietary guidelines should incorporate this information and recommend that Americans consume, to the extent possible, organic produce and organic pastured animal products.

Sign the petition to USDA and send a letter to Congress. Tell them that organic food must be emphasized in new dietary guidelines.

Petition to USDA

As USDA takes public comments on its updated dietary guidelines, it important that sustainable, regenerative organic food production practices are an integral part. Since 1990, Congress has required an every-five-years review of its Dietary Guidelines — recommendations that are supposed, minimally, to promote public health and prevent chronic diseases. The next review and a draft updated version, the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is currently underway. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) examined the evidence on sustainable diets for the first time, but this topic was not included within the scope of work for the 2020 DGAC. The 2015 committee concluded that “in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact ([greenhouse gas] emissions and energy, land, and water use) than is the current average U.S. diet.” [1]

USDA says that the food guidelines provide “information that helps Americans make healthy choices for themselves and their families.” In order to make healthy food choices, the guidelines must go beyond the traditional parameters to include how the food is produced. How food is produced affects the health of Americans not only as a result of the nutritional quality of the food, but also due to environmental contamination.

Although research on the nutritional density of organic produce is equivocal, showing some higher levels of antioxidants [2], results are decidedly clear for animal products. Pastured organic animal products—including beef [3], lamb [4], pork [5], dairy [6], poultry [7], and eggs [8]—have been shown to be superior to that of products of chemical-intensive crops and confined animals in their distribution of fatty acids.

The differences to consumers go beyond nutritional value. Organic food is generally free of residues of pesticides and antibiotics. Pesticide residues are found in 70% of the food sold in the U.S., and residues of antibiotics are common in nonorganic milk. [9] These residues may not exceed EPA tolerances, but lower levels may still have health effects. EPA does not take into account the combined effects of different pesticides that may occur on an item of produce (or in a meal), which often exceed the sum of the residues. It does not take into account the combined effects of all the ingredients of a single pesticide product. Despite a requirement in the Food Quality Protection Act that EPA implement screening of pesticides for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by 1999, pesticides are still not evaluated for their endocrine disruption potential, which can occur at levels far below those that cause the effects for which EPA tests.

Among the endocrine disruptors that are particularly relevant in the context of these guidelines are obesogens. As stated in an article by Drs. Amanda Janesick and Bruce Blumberg, “Recently, EDCs have been implicated in metabolic syndrome and obesity. Adipose tissue is a true endocrine organ and, therefore, an organ that is highly susceptible to disturbance by EDCs. A subset of EDCs, called ‘obesogens,’ promote adiposity by altering programming of fat cell development, increasing energy storage in fat tissue, and interfering with neuroendocrine control of appetite and satiety.” [10]

In addition to the direct impacts of pesticide food residues on consumers, chemical-intensive agriculture contaminates air, water, and land, affecting the health of Americans in other ways. Pesticides in the air can aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems. Pesticides run off into streams and leach into groundwater, contaminating drinking water. Farmworkers should also be protected by these food guidelines because their health is threatened by the poisons that are applied to fields where they work. [11]

Organic food production sequesters more carbon in the soil than conventional chemical-intensive agriculture, helping to mitigate climate change. [12] Health hazards of climate change range from injury and death from a higher frequency of more severe storms to northward migration of tropical diseases and their insect vectors.

USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic, synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic–pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife.

The updated dietary guidelines should incorporate this information and recommend that Americans consume, to the extent possible, organic produce and organic pastured animal products.

References

[1] DGAC (Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee). 2015. Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.

[2] Bernacchia, R., Preti, R. and Vinci, G., 2016. Organic and Conventional Foods: Differences in Nutrients. Italian Journal of Food Science, 28(4).

[3] Bjorklund, E.A., Heins, B.J., DiCostanzo, A. and Chester-Jones, H., 2014. Fatty acid profiles, meat quality, and sensory attributes of organic versus conventional dairy beef steers. Journal of Dairy Science, 97(3), pp.1828-1834.

[4] Popova, T., 2007. Effect of the rearing system on the fatty acid composition and oxidative stability of the M. longissimus lumborum and M. semimembranosus in lambs. Small Ruminant Research, 71(1-3), pp. 150-157.

[5] Practical Farmers of Iowa, 2019. Research Report: Fatty acid comparisons of grain and forage-fed pork. https://practicalfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/18.L.Nutrient-Density-Profiles-for-Conventional-vs.-Pasture-Raised-Pork.pdf.

[6] Benbrook, C.M., Davis, D.R., Heins, B.J., Latif, M.A., Leifert, C., Peterman, L., Butler, G., Faergeman, O., Abel-Caines, S. and Baranski, M., 2018. Enhancing the fatty acid profile of milk through forage-based rations, with nutrition modeling of diet outcomes. Food science & nutrition, 6(3), pp.681-700.

[7] Tufarelli, V., Ragni, M. and Laudadio, V., 2018. Feeding forage in poultry: a promising alternative for the future of production systems. Agriculture, 8(6), p.81.

[8] Karsten, H.D., Patterson, P.H., Stout, R. and Crews, G., 2010. Vitamins A, E and fatty acid composition of the eggs of caged hens and pastured hens. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(1), pp.45-54.

[9] Pesticide residues found in 70% of produce sold in US even after washing, The Guardian. March 20, 2019. Welsh, J.A., Braun, H., Brown, N., Um, C., Ehret, K., Figueroa, J. and Barr, D.B., 2019. Production-related contaminants (pesticides, antibiotics and hormones) in organic and conventionally produced milk samples sold in the USA. Public health nutrition, 22(16), pp.2972-2980.

[10] Janesick, A.S. and Blumberg, B., 2016. Obesogens: an emerging threat to public health. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 214(5), pp.559-565.

[11] https://beyondpesticides.org/resources/eating-with-a-conscience/overview.

[12] Ghabbour, E.A., Davies, G., Misiewicz, T., Alami, R.A., Askounis, E.M., Cuozzo, N.P., Filice, A.J., Haskell, J.M., Moy, A.K., Roach, A.C. and Shade, J., 2017. National comparison of the total and sequestered organic matter contents of conventional and organic farm soils. In Advances in Agronomy (Vol. 146, pp. 1-35). Academic Press.

Letter to Congress

Congress requires a review of its Dietary Guidelines—recommendations to promote public health and prevent chronic diseases—every five years. The 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans review is currently underway. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) examined the evidence on sustainable diets for the first time, but this topic was not included within the scope of work for the 2020 DGAC.

USDA says food guidelines provide “information that helps Americans make healthy choices for themselves and their families.” The guidelines must include production practices that affect the health of Americans not only through the nutritional quality of the food, but also due to environmental contamination.

Research on the nutritional density of organic produce shows some higher levels of antioxidants. Pastured organic animal products—including beef, lamb, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs—have been shown to be superior to that of products of chemical-intensive agriculture in their distribution of fatty acids.

Organic food is generally free of residues of pesticides and antibiotics. Pesticide residues are found in 70% of the food sold in the U.S., and residues of antibiotics are common in nonorganic milk. Even when residues do not exceed EPA tolerances, they may have health effects. EPA does not take into account the combined effects of different pesticides or of all the ingredients of a single pesticide product. Despite a requirement in the Food Quality Protection Act that EPA implement screening of pesticides for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) by 1999, pesticides are still not evaluated for their endocrine disruption potential, which can occur at levels far below those that cause the effects for which EPA tests.

Among the EDCs that are particularly relevant in the context of these guidelines are obesogens. As stated in an article by Drs. Amanda Janesick and Bruce Blumberg, “Recently, EDCs have been implicated in metabolic syndrome and obesity. Adipose tissue is a true endocrine organ and, therefore, an organ that is highly susceptible to disturbance by EDCs. A subset of EDCs, called ‘obesogens,’ promote adiposity by altering programming of fat cell development, increasing energy storage in fat tissue, and interfering with neuroendocrine control of appetite and satiety.”

In addition to the impacts on consumers, pesticides in the air can aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems. Pesticides run off into streams and leach into groundwater, contaminating drinking water. The health of farmworkers is threatened by the poisons applied to fields where they work.

Organic food production sequesters more carbon in the soil than conventional chemical-intensive agriculture, helping to mitigate climate change. Health hazards of climate change range from injury and death from a higher frequency of more severe storms to northward migration of tropical diseases and their insect vectors.

USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, assuring consumers that toxic synthetic pesticides used in conventional agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health, protecting Americans from pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish, and other wildlife.

The updated dietary guidelines should incorporate this information and recommend that Americans consume, to the extent possible, organic produce and organic pastured animal products.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2020) As the novel coronavirus pandemic upends much of human activity, some governments are acting to loosen environmental regulations — purportedly, in the interests of public health in the face of Covid-19 threats, and/or in deference to economic concerns of certain industrial sectors. There has been little analysis, to date, of what the “on the ground” impacts of these relaxed rules may be, but news out of Scotland illustrates some kinds of concerns critics and advocates have about such loosening of regulations. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) has issued new, temporary rules that allow some salmon farms both to ignore newly established limits on the amount of emamectin, an insecticide used to control sea lice that plague the salmon, and to boost use of azamethiphos, another insecticide used against the lice, beyond previous 24-hour limits.

SEPA says the relaxed rules will endure only as long as the Covid-19 “lockdown” remains in place (perhaps the end of June), and apply only to new or expanding enterprises, which to date total approximately 14 of the country’s 200+ salmon farms. The farmed salmon industry represents a huge domestic and export commodity worth approximately $2.5 billion annually. In addition to the loosening of these specific pesticide rules, collection, analysis, and reporting about environmental samples, which may be delayed for some of the same reasons, will “not be treated as a non-compliance” if SEPA is notified and offered a “suitable explanation.”

Farmed fish, and Atlantic salmon in this case, are raised in what are, essentially, pens suspended in open sea lochs (arms of the sea that are narrow or partially landlocked) on Scotland’s west coast and Northern Isles. Many of these are in relatively remote areas, so are somewhat “hidden” from public scrutiny. The fish in these pens live under very crowded conditions, with far greater density than do wild salmon. They are fed processed feed that is usually laced with various pharmaceuticals and/or insecticides used to ward off diseases and pest infestations, such as the sea lice, which tend to break out in such crowded conditions.

The fish also discharge thousands of tons of feces and food waste into the surrounding sea (as well as pesticide and pharmaceutical residues). The food and fecal matter ratchet up the nitrate levels in the nearby marine ecosystem, which has deleterious effects on ocean plants and organisms. The pesticides and other pharmaceuticals can harm local ecosystems and marine life.

Friends of the Earth has written, “It is no secret that a massive population of animals in a closed space will breed pests and disease. Farmed fish in net pens are hosts to a variety of pests and diseases, including sea lice, infectious salmon anemia, and Piscine Reovirus, just to name a few. Rather than solve the root of the problem — that is, by sustainably farming animals in more humane conditions — mega-farms simply add to the problem by using pesticides and a pharmacopeia of agricultural drugs in an attempt to control pests and disease. . . . A number of industrial ocean fish farms have embraced pesticides to ward off sea lice and other parasites. Not only do these dangerous chemicals kill off sea lice, but also everything living nearby the farm.”

Fish farming also decreases biodiversity. Wild and farmed Atlantic salmon are not genetically identical; farmed species are often hybrids from non-local stocks. Farmed fish often escape their pens through holes in the netting; in 2016, for example, more than 300,000 farmed salmon escaped their pens off Scotland’s coast. When this occurs, DNA can be transferred from the formerly captive salmon to wild populations in the area. The important genetic diversity of wild Atlantic salmon is compromised when they breed with farmed Atlantic salmon — an effect that increases over time and growing contacts. This threatens wild populations: stocks of wild salmon in rivers and waterways will be reduced because locally adapted gene pools make for better survival rates. In fact, in 2019, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) reported that Scotland’s wild salmon stocks were at their lowest level ever.

Less than a week prior to its announcement on these two pesticides, SEPA relaxed rules regulating the monitoring of salmon farms, the permitted weight of salmon in the farms’ cages, and the length of time the fish can remain in them. SEPA asserted that the move was to help aquatic fisheries deal with staff shortages and necessary social distancing related to Covid-19. SEPA took the steps on loosening these pesticide rules in response to fishing industry requests, which claimed that, for example, given those issues, emamectin (sold commercially as the product “Slice”) was “the only practical option for maintaining control over sea lice during the Covid-19 outbreak.”

SEPA is aware that emamectin and azamethiphos kill crustaceans (e.g., crabs, lobsters, and others), but have deemed this an acceptable short-term impact. Ironically, SEPA attempted to ban emamectin in 2016, following a study by the Scottish Association for Marine Science that “warned that emamectin was harming crabs, lobsters and other crustaceans around fish farms.” SEPA did manage to tighten regulations on use of the pesticide in October 2017. But, in 2019, The Ferret reported, based on 2017–2018 investigations, SEPA and the Scottish government “secretly bowed to pressure from the Scottish Salmon Producers’ Organisation (SSPO). To bolster their arguments about the pesticide, SSPO and Merck (emamectin’s U.S. manufacturer) funded an unpublished study that asserted that “wildlife in sea lochs could withstand high concentrations of the pesticide.” SEPA used this study in its reviews, and has claimed that it can’t release it publicly because it is “commercially confidential.”

Merck and the SSPO defended the study and justified use of emamectin, saying that, “Sea lice infestations represent the most significant disease problem currently affecting sea-farmed salmon around the world. Effective control of all parasitic stages of sea lice with emamectin, as part of an integrated pest management approach, including biological control and mechanical treatments, has helped to dramatically increase animal welfare and reduce the economic impact of sea lice on the global salmon industry.”

Environmental advocates have voiced their opposition to the current rule changes, and to the past several years of lobbying by the industry to allow not only use, but also, higher limits on use, of emamectin in marine fish farms. Objections are based on multiple concerns, including the harms to aquatic organisms and ecosystems that increased pollution and the toxicity of such pesticides cause. A spokesperson for the Scottish Greens said, “Emamectin is a toxic pesticide which has been shown to devastate marine life. SEPA previously believed there was a case for an outright ban on its use, so at the very least ministers must back the stringent controls now recommended by experts, and resist the inevitable pressure from industry lobbyists and their dubious, unpublished research.”

The National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Salmon Watch, and Trout Conservation Scotland have all criticized use of this pesticide in salmon farming. Scottish Salmon Watch called emamectin a “serial killer of shellfish” and said, “SEPA must ban emamectin as they proposed back in 2016 before the industry, Scottish Government and chemical giant Merck successfully lobbied to delay, deny and distract. No ifs and buts and no more delays. ‘Slicegate’ represents everything that is wrong with the dirty rotten Scottish salmon farming industry.” National Trust for Scotland issued this statement: “The aquaculture industry is recommending hugely elevated levels similar to those that we already know are killing marine wildlife. Accepting the industry’s assessment of safe levels for these chemicals would be like accepting the fox’s advice on chicken farm security.”

The Coast Communities Network (CCN), a coalition of 16 groups that has grave concerns about the impacts of emamectin on shellfish, has called fish farms the “biggest polluters of Scotland’s seas, and has called on Scottish ministers to reject the industry push for weakened regulations. On the current “Covid” loosening of rules, the CCN fish farming spokesperson, John Aitchison, has said, “We do not want them to discharge any more pollution. . . . The need to dump even more pollution in the sea during this crisis shows that it must give up its open nets and adopt closed-containment methods to capture its pollution instead, as any other responsible industry would do.” Scottish Salmon Watch representative Don Staniford commented, “It’s scandalous that SEPA is now opening the floodgates to lobster-killing chemicals such as emamectin — a toxic chemical SEPA planned on banning back in 2016. . . . Coronavirus is being deployed as a Trojan horse by salmon farmers waging a never-ending war on sea lice. Heaven knows what environmental damage this toxic industry will be guilty of by the end of June when the temporary rules are lifted.”

In 2019, commenting on the industry push to raise limits on emamectin’s use based on the “secret’ study, Mr. Aitchison denounced that development: “It seems beyond belief that a pesticide company can lobby a regulator to be lenient when setting the standards that will govern the use of its products, based on data and analysis which it refuses to make public. It is hard to understand how the SSPO can justify funding this study while claiming that its members are using the sea sustainably. Surely the industry must see how irresponsible it is to argue that it’s safe to discharge high levels of a persistent pesticide into the sea where many jobs depend on catching crabs, lobsters and prawns? Surely it must also see that this destroys the credibility of its PR and advertising, that so often trade on fish farmers rearing salmon in Scotland’s pristine seas?”

This relaxation of regulations in Scotland is not the only example of governmental short-sightedness that may result in increased environmental and public health damage. Here in the U.S., on March 26, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to relax a number of regulations, including those on air quality protections (even given evidence that poorer air quality increases the lethality of Covid-19), and on the explosion of toxic disinfectants allowed for public use.

Beyond Pesticides alerted readers about these regulatory issues in its March 27 Daily News Blog piece, “Safer Practices and Disinfectants for Coronavirus Identified by CDC, As EPA Advances Toxic Products, Suspends Public Health and Environmental Protections.” For guidance on nontoxic protection from the novel Coronavirus, see Beyond Pesticides’ Factsheet, and monitor the Daily News Blog for emerging developments. Please practice the important safety and health protocols found in the Factsheet, and from reliable, science-based outlets, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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

Sources: https://theferret.scot/toxic-pesticides-salmon-farmers-coronavirus/ and https://theferret.scot/fish-farming-industry-emamectin/.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2020) Pesticide exposure in farmland birds is a concomitant of pesticide-treated muesli (cereal) seed commonly planted during winter months, according to research published in Science of the Total Environment by United Kingdom (UK) scientists. Not only do pesticide-treated seeds pose the highest dietary risk to birds, but pesticide-treated seeds also go underreported as farmers often lack knowledge of what pesticides are on the seeds they plant. This study emphasizes the global effects of treated seeds, and their corresponding pesticide exposure, on bird species. Future risk assessments for bird should address these implications when implementing agricultural pesticide policies. 

Farmers use of treated seeds exposes farmland birds to pesticides like neonicotinoids (neonics), including clothianidin (CLO). Pesticide residues then accumulate in the birds’ blood. UK scientists examined pesticides in farmland bird blood samples to connect the field-based use of treated seeds to clothianidin exposure patterns. At the time of this study, CLO was the most widely used pesticide on treated winter cereal seeds in the UK.

Scientists recorded the presence of neonicotinoid-treated seed in 39 fields of 25 farms after seeding. Camera traps monitored farmland birds’ seed consumption. To measure CLO concentration in treated seed and seedling, scientists used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to identify inorganic, organic, and biochemical compounds. Researchers obtained blood samples from 11 farmland avian species to calculate CLO occurrence and level of exposure related to treated seeds.

Neonicotinoid-treated cereal seeds were present on the soil surface of all farms, 38 out of 39 field sites, and in clusters on 31 out of 39 field sites. Conventional agricultural practices (such as drilling) made seed surface coverage less dense toward the field’s center as farmers’ field equipment clustered seeds towards the edges. Thirty-two percent of all surveyed bird species suffered CLO exposure with 15 species of bird consuming CLO-treated seeds, in situ. Researchers detected CLO in 50% of individual blood plasma samples in 10 out of 11 avian species. This study demonstrates the highest logged clothianidin exposure levels for wild birds, thus far.

Many birds’ diet consists of agricultural seeds and plant matter. Neonicotinoid pesticides accumulate in migratory songbirds and reduce their chances of survival in the wild by producing a torrent of sublethal impacts (weight reduction, travel delays, and a reduction in reproductive success). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that 1-5 seeds of treated-corn cause acute to chronic levels of harm to large and small birds alike. EPA states, “Dietary exposures from clothianidin treated seeds are noted to result in the highest acute and chronic risks from the terrestrial risk assessment to birds and mammals.”

This study demonstrates that clothianidin toxicity is above foraging birds’ threshold for the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL). Larger wood pigeons ingest 65% of the chemical compound required to cause adverse reproductive effects. Smaller wood pigeons consume 11%-31% of the chemical compound to exceed the NOAEL threshold for reproductive dysfunction. UK researchers assert that inadequate seeding application methods (field conditions, equipment, calibration, etc.) allot “unlimited” quantities of neonicotinoid-treated seeds to poison foraging birds.

The identification of neonicotinoid-treated seed as a source of pesticide exposure is relevant when assessing the future risks pesticides expound unto bird species. In addition to toxicity exposure, improper control regulations, poor manufacturing, and high application variability make pesticide-treated seeds problematic. The data from this study has implications for a multitude of bird species exposed to toxic insecticides and should aid in future policy decisions related to this group of chemicals. Switch to organic to reduce wild birds’ exposure to toxic insecticides (like clothianidin) and replace pesticide-treated seeds with organic seeds from our organic seed directory. Learn more about pesticide-treated seeds and the harm they cause by viewing Seeds that Poison. To see how you can protect your local bird population, learn more about pesticides’ impact on birds and how organics help eliminate pesticide exposure.

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

Source: Science of The Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, April 15, 2020) Home pesticide use during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of a child developing the kidney cancer nephroblastoma, or Wilms’ tumor, according to research published in Cancer Epidemiology by a team of French scientists. Wilms’ tumor is one of the most common childhood cancers but has an inscrutable etiology. This study adds weight to the theory that pesticides are a driver of the tumor’s development, as pesticide use was more strongly associated than other widely investigated causes, including parental smoking and alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

Families enrolled in an ongoing nationwide French study were questioned by phone about their lifestyle, including smoking habits, mother’s alcohol consumption, and household pesticide use. Participants were further segmented by their frequency of these risk factors, and pesticide use was narrowed down by type, including herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide use, as well as where the chemicals were used (indoor/outdoor). Researchers ultimately enrolled 117 families whose children developed nephroblastoma, and included 1100 families as a control.

A regression analysis found no association between either parent smoking and incidence of the disease. Similarly, no pattern was found in the relation between maternal alcohol consumption and Wilms’ tumor. However, use of any pesticides during pregnancy was associated with a higher risk of disease development. Families whose children developed nephroblastoma reported higher rates of pesticide use than control families (52% to 40%). While any pesticide use was associated with a higher risk, insecticides, particularly use of combinations of insecticides and other pesticides, showed stronger associations. The strongest link between Wilms’ tumor and environmental exposure was parental use of pesticides within three months of pregnancy.

This study reinforces concepts around “critical windows of exposure,” which posits that prenatal and early-life exposure to environmental toxins increase susceptibility to health impacts. While nephroblastoma generally afflicts children under the age of five, other early life exposures can take years, and even decades before health impacts arise. A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2019 found that women exposed to the long-banned chemical DDT during childhood or puberty had an increased risk of developing cancer both before and after the age of 50. Researchers were able to determine how first exposure related to the timing of breast cancer development. Maternal exposure to DDT and its metabolites in the womb has also been linked to a higher chance of an autism diagnosis in children. Relevant to the current Covid19 pandemic, prenatal and infant exposure to DDT and other organochlorine class pesticides has been linked to poorer lung function in adolescence.

The present study did not zero in on the exact pesticides associated with Wilms’ tumor, but current evidence indicates that it is not only banned chemicals like DDT that are harming mothers and children during critical windows of development. A 2018 study published in Environmental Health found that women with high levels of the weedkiller glyphosate in their bodies were more likely to have shorter pregnancies, which puts children at risk delayed brain development and learning disabilities.  

Nephroblastoma is not the only cancer that has been linked to household pesticide use. A 2017 study published in Cancer Epidemiology using the same French cohort found an association between past use of pesticides in the home and the development of brain tumors in children under the age of 15. Nicolas Vidart d’Egurbide Bagazgoïtia, PhD, lead author of the study, noted, “Although such retrospective studies cannot identify specific chemicals used or quantify the exposure, our findings add another reason to advise mothers to limit their exposure to pesticides around the time of pregnancy.”

There a strong consensus among pediatricians that pregnant mothers and young children should avoid pesticide exposure during these critical windows of development. Given the wide availability of non-pesticidal alternative strategies to manage common household pests, these precautions represent low-hanging fruit for new families wishing to give their children a safe and healthy head start in the world.

For more information on the link between pesticide use and cancer, and to learn more about critical windows of exposure for young children, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Cancer Epidemiology

(Beyond Pesticides, April 14, 2020) An op-ed in the New York Times asks, “What Happens if America’s 2.5 Million Farmworkers Get Sick?” Without those farmworkers, the year-round supply of fresh fruits and vegetables that we take for granted would be impossible. The supply chain of those vital foods starts with the workers who plant, cultivate, and harvest them. Our society and everyone living in the U.S. depend on farmworkers.

Tell Congress to provide essential benefits to essential farmworkers.

But farmworkers are at high risk from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Living in crowded conditions, social distancing is impossible for them. They have little access to health care. Washing hands is often impossible in the field. With children home from school, they have additional childcare costs to pay with their low wages. They also have increased costs from using private transportation to avoid crowded buses.

And many farmworkers are exposed to respiratory hazards like pesticides and fungal spores that make them more susceptible to the coronavirus.

As the medical demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) increases, farmworkers are being faced with potential shortages of masks, gloves, and suits. Last month, a group of Washington farmworkers walked off a worksite because their employer was not offering sufficient PPE. No farmworker should be forced to apply pesticides without the necessary PPE. EPA and states must enforce this label requirement. On March 26, EPA issued a sweeping suspension of its enforcement program, putting farmworkers at even higher risk. U.S. agricultural producers are subject to an EPA worker protection rule governing enforcement of pesticide use restrictions, rather than labor laws under the Department of Labor.

At least 50% of farmworkers are undocumented, so they will not get the relief payment most other households will, even though they are U.S. taxpayers. Even their U.S. citizen children are left out. Farmworkers need our support because they do not have the personal protective equipment (PPE) and social safety nets that they need!

Tell Congress to provide essential benefits to essential farmworkers.

Sustainable agriculture includes support for agricultural workers. Farmworkers who are currently employed on a farm should receive the same payments as any other workers without questions about their status as citizens. They should be eligible for paid sick leave, SNAP (food stamps), health coverage, and workmen’s compensation.

You can contribute directly to farm and food workers through these organizations:

• Farm Labor Organizing Committee (AFL-CIO), Midwest and North Carolina, through CMMJ
• Farmworker COVID-19 Pandemic Relief Fund
• Farmworker Association of Florida
• National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) Immigrant Worker Safety Net Fund
• Indigenous Environmental Network
• Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC) Relief
• Restaurant Workers Community Foundation
• One Fair Wage Emergency Fund

Tell Congress to provide essential benefits to essential farmworkers.                                                                

 Letter to Congress

 An op-ed in the New York Times asks, “What Happens if America’s 2.5 Million Farmworkers Get Sick?” Without those farmworkers, the year-round supply of fresh fruits and vegetables that we take for granted would be impossible. The supply chain of those vital foods starts with the workers who plant, cultivate, and harvest them. Our society and everyone living in the U.S. depend on farmworkers.

But farmworkers are at high risk from the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. Living in crowded conditions, social distancing is impossible for them. They have little access to health care. Washing hands is often impossible in the field. With children home from school, they have additional childcare costs to pay with their low wages. They also have increased costs from using private transportation to avoid crowded buses.

And many farmworkers are exposed to respiratory hazards like pesticides and fungal spores that make them more susceptible to the coronavirus. On March 26, EPA issued a sweeping suspension of its enforcement program, putting farmworkers at even higher risk. U.S. agricultural producers are subject to an EPA worker protection rule governing enforcement of pesticide use restrictions, rather than labor laws under the Department of Labor.

As the medical demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) increases, farmworkers are being faced with potential shortages of masks, gloves, and suits. Last month, a group of Washington farmworkers walked off a worksite because their employer was not offering sufficient PPE.

At least 50% of farmworkers are undocumented, so they will not get the relief payment most other households will, even though they are U.S. taxpayers. Even their U.S. citizen children are left out.

If we want a continued supply of vital foods, we must support agricultural workers. Please take the following actions:

*Farmworkers who are currently employed on a farm should receive the same payments as any other workers without questions about their status as citizens.

*Farmworkers, regardless of immigration status, must be eligible for paid sick leave, SNAP (food stamps), health coverage, and workers’ compensation.

*Hazard pay must be provided immediately for these workers who are now working in a dangerous environment and dealing with large additional expenses.

*EPA and states must enforce pesticide product label requirements and the EPA farmworker protection rule so that no farmworker is be forced to apply pesticides without the necessary PPE.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2020) Since 1990, Congress has required an every-five-years review of its Dietary Guidelines — recommendations that are supposed, minimally, to promote public health and prevent chronic diseases. The next review and a draft updated iteration, the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, are currently underway. The Union of Concerned Scientists (and several colleagues) have examined recent studies on dietary patterns and sustainability; their analysis reveals that the current federal guidelines on diet are unlikely to support sustainability of the food system in the long-term. Beyond Pesticides concurs, and maintains that a transition to sustainable, organic, regenerative agriculture is the path to both improved human health and long-term sustainability of the natural world essential to life.

The Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS’s) report — In Support of Sustainable Eating: Why U.S. Dietary Guidelines Should Prioritize Healthy People and a Healthy Planet — identifies this next version of the federal guidelines as a critical opportunity to shift the direction of the U.S. food and agricultural system toward far greater sustainability. UCS asserts that such a shift is beyond due: the food system in the U.S. has huge environmental impacts on pollution, use of chemical pesticides, biodiversity, and emissions that significantly worsen the myriad impacts of the climate crisis — in addition to its effects on public health.

The relationship between dietary patterns and health outcomes is solidly established. Poorer diet correlates to increased risks of a multitude of chronic health problems, including Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity. Such diet-associated diseases are among the chief causes of mortality and morbidity in this country; approximately 18% of U.S. deaths can be attributed to dietary factors. The Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted research that determined that if U.S. adults actually consumed the levels of vegetables and fruits recommended by current guidelines, “nearly 110,000 lives and $32 billion in medical costs could be saved in a single year due to reductions in cardiovascular disease.” Poor diet can translate not only to negative health outcomes, but also, to significant economic cost; as UCS notes, “Another recent study has estimated the total cost of poor diets at $50 billion annually.”

Beyond those important issues, the foods that consumers choose influence mightily the kind of agriculture that is deployed. In the U.S., that is still predominantly conventional, fossil-fuel and chemical-pesticide-intensive agriculture that is profoundly unsustainable. Some of the unsavory “downstream” environmental impacts of this kind of agriculture include its contributions to climate change — higher temperatures, compromised water and air quality, and extreme weather events, among others, that present greater risks to those with chronic conditions and acute illnesses. In addition, the unsustainable practices of conventional agriculture rob soil of its living fertility, pollute waterways with runoff, harm ecosystems and wildlife, and degrade air, soil, and water — all of which make our food system increasingly unable to respond to the challenges that a warming planet represent to our food supply.

Further, because conventional agriculture relies heavily on pesticides to deal with pests and fungal diseases, non-organic diets necessarily mean some toxic chemical residue in the foods people consume. This contamination of the food supply threatens human health in a variety of ways; see more at Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. Further, the pesticide and climate impacts (especially, increasing temperatures) of conventional agriculture interact to increase the health risks to farmworkers, according to another UCS report from late 2019.

Such extensive implications of the agricultural practices employed, again, driven in large part by consumer demand, speak to the potential that a transition of our food system offers. A move to more healthful diets, supported by a sustainable, organic, regenerative agricultural system, could mean great gains for public health, the environment, and global climate. Guidelines and messaging from federal agencies can have massive impact on food and agricultural policy, and ultimately, on what American choose to eat. This is precisely why the content of the new 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines is so important.

Improved patterns of dietary consumption are often referred to as “sustainable diets” by some global policy entities. Such patterns are defined as “those with low environmental impacts [that] contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations” by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has pointed to the need for broad changes in dietary patterns in order to rein in the growing impacts of the climate emergency. In response to such recommendations, countries such as Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany have incorporated sustainability principles into their national dietary guidance.

As noted above, the U.S. has yet to use the best available scientific research to promote sustainable dietary patterns among its populace. When the Dietary Guidelines undergo the periodic review, a scientific advisory committee writes a report to guide the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in developing each revised set of the guidelines. In 2015, that report said: “in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods, is more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact ([greenhouse gas] emissions and energy, land, and water use) than is the current average U.S. diet. A diet that is more environmentally sustainable than the average U.S. diet can be achieved without excluding any food groups.”

UCS reports that members of Congress were lobbied by industry interests (to the tune of more than $77 million in 2014 and 2015 on this and related matters). Subsequently, Congress sent a letter of dissent on the 2015 guidelines to federal agencies and passed legislation that limited the scope of the guidelines “strictly to the topics of diet and nutrient intake.” Then, USDA and HHS secretaries left the portions of the advisory committee’s findings that related to environmental sustainability out of the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines. Following on that decision, the charge given to the scientific advisory committee established for the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines did not include any review of current research on the relationship between dietary patterns and sustainability.

UCS and colleagues stepped into that vacuum, reviewing a large number of studies that have looked at the environmental consequences of dietary patterns in the U.S. The central question in their investigation was: “What is the relationship between population-level dietary patterns and food sustainability and related food security?” Their work underscores the urgent need for the federal government to act on this research by advancing policies that protect both public health and national food security by prioritizing remedies to the environmental impacts of public dietary patterns. The UCS report says, “Consistent with the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, new research supports past findings that diets higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods can provide greater benefits for both human health and the environment). Specifically, 16 studies in our systematic review attributed the increased environmental impacts of diets higher in animal-based foods primarily to the amount of meat (e.g., beef, lamb, pork) or dairy in the diet.”

The UCS report makes several policy and research recommendations, with this introduction and conclusion: “The federal government must act with urgency to meet the pressing public health challenges of climate change, pollution, and chronic diseases by ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of our food supply. To develop sustainable food policy with the potential to support current and future population health across environmental, social, and economic domains, we recommend the following actions:

• The scientific advisory committee for the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines . . . must address the relationship between dietary patterns and environmental sustainability in its report, and [USDA and HHS] must respond to these recommendations publicly.
• Congress must support the inclusion of sustainability in the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines.
• Congress should enable more publicly funded research on diets that are both healthy and sustainable.

The systematic review completed by UCS and colleagues adds to a growing body of scientific evidence that dietary shifts can improve public health through chronic disease prevention, climate change mitigation, and the preservation of the future food supply. As the nation’s leading set of science-based nutrition recommendations, the Dietary Guidelines should reflect this body of evidence. It is past time that the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, supported by the best available research and implemented alongside other key federal food and agricultural policies, be equipped to address the most pressing public health challenges of our lifetime.”

Beyond Pesticides has written on the health advantages of organic dietary patterns, the role of regenerative agriculture in climate-impact mitigation, and the environmental benefits of organic agriculture, and broadly supports the analysis, recommendations, and conclusions of the UCS report. Stay tuned for an Action of the Week, which will provide the public an opportunity to comment on the current draft of the 2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

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

Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/in-support-of-sustainable-eating_0.pdf