(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the subject to a new legal challenge from environmental groups after approving the use an insecticide shown to be highly toxic to bees and other pollinators.  The lawsuit, filed in the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety, aims to stop the use of sulfoxaflor on more than 200 million acres of crops. As EPA under the Trump administration has become increasingly emboldened to fight for industry priorities, concerned organizations and people are responding by supporting legal challenges and working to pass policies that truly protect wildlife and the environment.

According to EPA’s ecological risk assessment for sulfoxaflor, the chemical is “very highly toxic” to bees. A study published last year in the journal Nature found significant concerns with the chemical’s ability to harm already declining pollinator populations. “There is an urgent need to pre-emptively evaluate the potential sub-lethal effects of sulfoximine-based pesticides on pollinators, because such effects are rarely detected by standard ecotoxicological assessments, but can have major impacts at larger ecological scales,” the authors wrote.

EPA had already run in to legal problems associated with its registration of sulfoxaflor. In 2013, the agency was sued by beekeepers who argued that EPA violated federal law and its own regulations by approving the chemical without reliable studies on the impact to pollinators. A federal court agreed with beekeeping groups, and revoked EPA’s full registration of the chemical. But the agency quickly turned around and registered sulfoxaflor for uses on crops that it says are not attractive to pollinators.

The agency regularly permits use on pollinator-attractive crops under the “emergency” exemption loophole in federal pesticide law. Most recently, the agency used this loophole during Pollinator Week 2019, despite a recent report from the Office of Inspector General chastising the agency for its abuse of this provision.

Despite the agency’s history with this concerning chemical, EPA nonetheless decided to again go to bat for industry and fully register the chemical for all uses, including on crops foraged by pollinators. “Proposing to register sulfoxaflor for use on bee-attractive crops, in the midst of an ongoing pollinator crisis, is the height of irresponsibility,” Drew Toher, community resource and policy director for Beyond Pesticides told Bloomberg Environment. “When all of the available data points to significant risks to pollinators from use of this chemical we must face the facts: EPA is working towards the protection of pesticide industry, not the environment,” he said.

The lawsuit by environmental groups challenges EPA’s rejection of the peer-reviewed Nature paper in favor of industry-funded studies that are not peer-reviewed, and not available for public scrutiny.  Not only is the agency working off of questionable data, it did not even require sufficiently investigate the impacts it already had knowledge of. At the request of industry, EPA waived the legal requirement for a full-field study of sulfoxaflor’s impacts on pollinators, saying it would “not add meaningful input to our conclusions,” and thus indicating that the approval was a foregone conclusion. Under EPA’s approval, the chemical can be aerially sprayed with no buffer zone, and applied before and during bloom periods when pollinators are most active.

With EPA failing to take even the most basic steps to protect declining pollinators, it is up to concerned residents to get active in their state and community and demand change. Work to pass policies that eliminate sulfoxaflor and a broad range of systemic pesticides by promoting organic land care.  For help in organizing your community, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety Press Release, Circuit Court Filing

(Beyond Pesticides, August 26, 2019) U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently released draft legislation that will – among other initiatives – promote carbon-sequestering practices in agriculture. The draft Climate Stewardship Act includes farmers as a critical component in the response to the climate crisis by encouraging “carbon farming” through incentives, training, and research. U.S. Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM) is championing companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill will likely be introduced in September when Congress reconvenes.

Ask your U.S. Representative and Senators to Co-sponsor the Climate Stewardship Act and Help Farmers Save the Planet.

July of 2019 was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high (over 415 ppm) was during the Pliocene period – between 5.3 and 2.6 million years ago. The best time to have addressed global warming was 20 years ago, but the second-best time is now. Organic, regenerative agricultural practices help mend the earth from the ground up.

In addition to incentivizing soil health practices that organic farmers already employ, the bill adds $75,000,000 to the organic research and extension initiative (OREI). The bill contains a requirement that no less than 50% of these funds apply to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing resilience in the agricultural sector by improving soil health and capturing increased carbon levels in the soil (carbon sequestration).

A new United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) report named agriculture and forestry as a significant net source of greenhouse gas emissions, “contributing to about 22% of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) combined as CO₂ equivalents in 2007 to 2016.” At the same time, soil is a huge potential carbon sink. The potential for agricultural practices to reduce climate change has been an issue raised by several Presidential candidates.

Insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and synthetic fertilizers disrupt microbial communities and prevent the kind of carbon-capturing root and symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi systems that are necessary to offset climate change. They harm non-target organisms, including earthworms that assist with nutrient cycling, thereby diminishing soil health.

A 2017 study finds that organic farming practices sequester more carbon than chemical-intensive practices. Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial has evidenced organic systems that, “use 45% less energy, release 40% fewer carbon emissions, and have the potential to produce yields up to 40% higher in times of drought over conventional [chemical-intensive] systems.”

This legislation will promote organic and regenerative farming practices, which are crucial to sustainably feeding the world while sequestering carbon.

“After another year of extreme weather, no one understands the impacts of climate change better than our family farmers and ranchers,” says Senator Booker. “While our farmers face unique impacts from climate change, our farmers are also uniquely positioned to capture and store carbon in the ground, produce clean energy, and to reduce emissions. The same farmland practices that store carbon and reduce emissions also improve the ability of our farms to withstand extreme weather, reduce water pollution and protect drinking water, and reduce flood damages by storing and slowly releasing flood waters.”

Ask your U.S. Representative and Senators to Co-sponsor the Climate Stewardship Act and Help Farmers Save the Planet.

Letter to Congress

I am writing to ask that you consider co-sponsoring the Climate Stewardship Act in advance of the bill’s introduction in September.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Representative Deb Haaland (D-NM) recently released draft legislation that will – among other initiatives – promote carbon-sequestering practices in agriculture. The Climate Stewardship Act includes farmers as a critical component in the response to the climate crisis by encouraging “carbon farming” through incentives, training, and research.

July of 2019 was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were this high (over 415 ppm) was during the Pliocene period – between 5.3 and 2.6 million years ago. The best time to have addressed global warming was 20 years ago, but the second-best time is now. Organic, regenerative agricultural practices help mend the Earth from the ground up.

A new IPPC report named agriculture and forestry as a significant net source of greenhouse gas emissions, “contributing to about 22% of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) combined as CO2 equivalents in 2007 to 2016.” At the same time, soil is a huge potential carbon sink. The potential for agricultural practices to reduce climate change has been an issue raised by several Presidential candidates.

Insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and synthetic fertilizers disrupt microbial communities and prevent the kind of carbon-capturing root and symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi systems that are necessary to offset climate change. They harm non-target organisms, including earthworms that assist with nutrient cycling, thereby diminishing soil health.

A 2017 study finds that organic farming practices sequester more carbon than conventional. Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial has evidenced organic systems that, “use 45% less energy, release 40% fewer carbon emissions, and have the potential to produce yields up to 40% higher in times of drought over conventional [chemical-intensive] systems.”

This legislation will promote organic and regenerative farming practices, which are crucial to sustainably feeding the world while sequestering carbon. Please co-sponsor the Climate Stewardship Act and help farmers save the planet.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 23, 2019) The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released a report criticizing EPA’s oversight of states’ Managed Pollinator Protection Plans (MP3s). OIG conducted an audit, on which the report is based, to evaluate agency performance in overseeing MP3s, voluntary plans adopted at the state level with the goal to “reduce pesticide exposure to pollinators (generally, honey bees managed and contracted out to growers for pollination services) through timely communication and coordination among key stakeholders.”

The report’s findings include the following:

• EPA has no means to evaluate the national impact of MP3s.
• The agency has not developed a strategy to use data from a planned fall 2019 survey (see more below on the AAPCO/SFIREG/EPA survey) to evaluate either the national impact of MP3s or the agency’s support of state MP3 implementation efforts.
• EPA focuses primarily on acute risks (those that occur during a single exposure to a specific pesticide), and gives insufficient attention to chronic exposures to pesticides and to native pollinator protection activities.

The history of the MP3 program starts in 2014, when President Obama issued a memo establishing a Pollinator Health Task Force (PHTF), directing federal agencies to take action to improve the health of honey bees and other pollinators. The memo required EPA to: assess the effects of pesticides on pollinator health; engage states and tribes in the development of pollinator protection plans; encourage the incorporation of pollinator protection and habitat planting activities into green infrastructure and Superfund projects; expedite review of registration applications for new products targeting pests harmful to pollinators; and increase habitat plantings around federal facilities. In response, EPA proposed the establishment of Managed Pollinator Protection Plans by each state as a primary vehicle to achieve improved health status of pollinators.

The MP3s were conceived as a means to enhance communication and mitigate exposure risks, with the expectation that expertise within the respective states could help design solutions for local and regional circumstances. In most states, development of the plans was relegated to the state agriculture department, which are often also responsible for pesticide regulation oversight and enforcement. Also in response to the Obama directive, EPA presented a widely criticized proposal on reducing acute exposure risks to pollinators — meant to address bees likely to be exposed from application of acutely toxic pesticides.

Beginning in 2015, EPA encouraged states to convene relevant stakeholders and develop MP3s, and worked with the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials (AAPCO), and an AAPCO committee called the State FIFRA Issues, Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG), to offer guidance on plan development. The final step in the process set out by the PHTF was for EPA to measure the effectiveness of state MP3s, through state review of factors such as overall pollinator health, exposure risks, and behavior and communication as barometers of efficacy. By the start of 2018, 45 states had developed (or were in the process of developing) such plans; see coverage of states MP3s here. By May 2019, AAPCO and SFIREG and EPA created a survey to evaluate MP3s; the plan is to distribute the survey to state pesticide agencies in the fall of 2019.

As Beyond Pesticides noted back in 2015, the MP3s would likely vary widely from state to state in terms of their approaches and compliance requirements. As it turns out, states are “all over the map” in terms of what their MP3s set out.

Stakeholders — state, tribal, and local governments, farmers/growers, beekeepers, landowners, nongovernmental organizations, pesticide applicators, have been brought into the MP3 process at the state level. Some of those have noted that the efficacy of the plans in terms of genuine protection of pollinators could be compromised because of EPA foci on acute risks and on managed pollinators. MP3s are limited to managed pollinators not under contract pollination services at the site of application — meaning that the well-being of wild and native bees goes unaddressed by the plans.

The OIG report states, “According to the stakeholders we interviewed, impacts from pesticide exposures are complex and a threat to pollinator health,” and “The focus on acute, site-specific pesticide risks and contracted pollinators means that related areas — such as chronic contact with pesticides and native pollinator protection activities identified in the NPMG — may not be receiving an appropriate level of attention.” In addition, advocates such as Beyond Pesticides have identified shortcomings in EPA’s role. One is that the MP3s, including their development of Best Management Practices (BMPs) mandated by the Presidential memo, were allowed to be entirely voluntary. Allowing states such latitude was predicted to be, and has been, inadequate to the task of protecting pollinators.

For example, in 2016 Beyond Pesticides wrote to the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) to say that its MP3 fell short of adequate protection of pollinator populations in the state, particularly by not taking a strong stance against the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. Beyond Pesticides recommended that MDAR adopt the recommendations of the state beekeepers’ Pollinator Protection Plan Framework. (See public comments on the Massachusetts MP3 here.) Additionally, Beyond Pesticides encouraged MDAR to: protect and monitor native pollinators; create pollinator habitat that is free of pesticide contamination; and improve regulatory enforcement and compliance statewide. Discouragingly, in 2018 in Massachusetts — where beekeepers lost 65% of their honey bee hives, a rate 25% higher than the national average — the state Legislature failed to pass a bill that would have restricted the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the state to protect sensitive pollinators.

Some of the concerns voiced by Beyond Pesticides and other stakeholders about EPA’s oversight of MP3s in the states appear to have surfaced in the OIG report, which concluded that “EPA needs to decide how it will measure, support and assist in the implementation of MP3s.” The report made five recommendations to be carried out by the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention:

• Develop and implement a strategy that will use Managed Pollinator Protection Plan survey data to measure the national impact of the Managed Pollinator Protection Plans.
• Using survey data, determine how the EPA will assist states with implementing their Managed Pollinator Protection Plans.
• Using survey data, fully communicate to states what Managed Pollinator Protection Plan implementation assistance is available from the EPA and how this assistance will be provided.
• Determine whether and how the EPA will help states address additional areas of concern — such as chronic pesticide risks and other limitations identified by stakeholders — through their Managed Pollinator Protection Plan implementation efforts.
• Determine how the EPA can use the Managed Pollinator Protection Plan survey results to advance its National Program Manager Guidance goals and its regulatory mission.

The dire state of our pollinators, and insect biodiversity generally, makes protective regulation and activity profoundly urgent. Follow developments in pollinator protection through Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog, its BEE Protective webpage, which includes actions the public can take, and via its quarterly journal, Pesticides and You. The public can also contact federal elected officials to insist that they support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act, HR 1337, which would cancel specific bee-toxic pesticides, and establish a review and cancellation process for all pesticides that are potentially harmful to pollinators. More ideas for community-based pollinator protection can be found here.

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

Source: EPA OIG Report

(Beyond Pesticides, August 22, 2019) In early August, experts from European Union (EU) member states and staff members of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced their conclusion that chlorpyrifos fails to meet criteria for renewed approval for use, potentially moving the EU a step closer to an outright ban. This ends the green light that chlorpyrifos (and its structurally close cousin, chlorpyrifos-methyl) have enjoyed at the EU level since 2006.

That permitting is set to expire in January of 2020, although eight member states — Germany, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovenia — had already either banned or never authorized chlorpyrifos use in their countries. In the U.S., states are picking up the slack on efforts against chlorpyrifos use as, in the tenure of the current administration, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has chosen to protect industry rather than human health and the environment.

The step EFSA took was unusual in that the agency does not typically publish findings before ongoing peer reviews are completed. EUObserver.com reports that EFSA’s public statement was triggered by a July 2019 EU request for information “on the available outcomes of the human health assessment in the context of the pesticides peer review for the renewal of approval of the active substance chlorpyrifos.” That request was catalyzed, reportedly, by public and NGO (nongovernmental organization) pressure that arose on the heels of an article, “Chlorpyrifos — the unknown pesticide,” published by Investigative Reporting Denmark and initiated by them and Danwatch. That research and reporting were done in collaboration with journalists from Knack in Belgium, Le Monde in France, Dagbladet in Norway, Newsweek in Poland, Ostro in Slovenia, El Confidential in Spain, and The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting in the U.S.

The EU and EFSA experts included in their findings:

• a genotoxic potential for chlorpyrifos cannot be ruled out
• chlorpyrifos meets the criteria for classification as toxic for reproduction (REPRO 1B, H360D, “May damage the unborn child”), as set out in EU regulation (EC) No 1272/2008)

Chlorpyrifos is a widely used organophosphate pesticide used on approximately 60 different crops, and most intensively on almonds, cotton, citrus fruits, grapes, corn, broccoli, sugar beets, peaches, and nectarines. It is also commonly used for mosquito-borne disease control, and on golf courses. Exposure to the pesticide has been identified repeatedly as problematic.

Chlorpyrifos is understood to be a developmental neurotoxin that is especially dangerous for children, on whom exposures can lead to a variety of impacts: attention deficit disorder, developmental delays, lower IQ, and impaired cognitive function, among others. Prenatal exposure to low levels of chlorpyrifos can impair children’s learning, change brain function, and alter thyroid levels — even into adulthood, and especially in females. The insecticide is linked to damaging and often irreversible health outcomes in workers (farm workers and applicators, especially) and pregnant women, as well as in children.

There is history on the U.S. “saga” of chlorpyrifos use: “In 2015 the EPA proposed to revoke food residue tolerances of chlorpyrifos, which would effectively have banned use of the pesticide in agriculture; all residential uses had previously been withdrawn from the market in 2000. Then, early in 2017, with a new administration in place, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt reversed the agency’s own proposal to ban the pesticide — a decision that happened just weeks after Mr. Pruitt met with the head of Dow Chemical Company, maker of the compound. Mr. Pruitt then falsely claimed the science on chlorpyrifos was ‘unresolved’ and said EPA would study the issue — with no planned action — until 2022.”

Meanwhile, states have moved to do what federal agencies have been unwilling to do — as on so many other fronts — during the tenure of the current administration. Hawaii, California, Maryland, New York, Oregon, and Connecticut are all at various stages of considering or enacting limits or outright bans.

Beyond Pesticides has reported on chlorpyrifos repeatedly, including a November 2018 Daily News Blog in which it covered a review of research data that showed that the conclusions used, both in the U.S. and abroad, to support the registration (or allowance) of chlorpyrifos, were flawed and ignored pertinent data on health impacts. Most recently, the Daily News Blog reported on an EPA decision to continue permitting the use of chlorpyrifos on food. That decision was pursuant to a lawsuit brought by 12 plaintiff organizations advocating for cancellation of the registration of the compound for use in agriculture.

What lies ahead for the European Union is a decision to renew approval of chlorpyrifos use, or to ban the pesticide. The question will be taken up at a September meeting of a standing committee of representatives from EU member states and the EU commission. A proposed decision is expected to be announced in October, and final approval in December. Here in the U.S., advocates, healthcare professionals, scientists, and members of the public continue to demand that this toxic pesticide be removed from the market because of its terrible health impacts, especially on children.

The public can work to ban chlorpyrifos by contacting federal and state senators and representatives, as well as governors, to support legislation and regulation to prohibit use of this insecticide. Consumers can also oppose the use of the compound by purchasing organic whenever possible, thus supporting an agricultural system that does not rely on toxic chemicals. Learn more about chlorpyrifos impacts and developments by visiting the Beyond Pesticides Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database and its factsheet, Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix (a chronicle of peer-reviewed scientific literature on the health effects of pesticides).

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

Sources: https://euobserver.com/environment/145594 and https://euobserver.com/environment/145594

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2019) A birth cohort study in Canada found elevated levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy are associated with lower IQ scores in 3 to 4-year-old children. This new research, published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, builds on previous analyses that suggest high fluoride exposure is related to adverse effects to children’s neurodevelopment. Researchers recommend that pregnant mothers should reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy. Noting the controversy of the study, JAMA Pediatrics editor Dr. Dimitri Christakis said it was subjected to “additional scrutiny for its methods and the presentation of its findings.”

The Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) program recruited pregnant mothers to participate in the study from 2008-2011. A total of 601 mother-child pairs from 6 major cities participated; 41% of them lived in cities with fluoridated municipal water. Exposure was measured through urine samples as well as self-reported maternal daily intake. Children were between ages 3 and 4 when tested for IQ.

A 1mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride is associated with a 3.7-point decrease in IQ. These findings echo a previous study in Mexico that found a 6-point lower IQ score in school-age children associated with a 1mg/L in maternal urinary fluoride. Women who live in communities with fluoridated drinking water have a significantly higher intake of fluoride (0.93mg/day) on average than women who did not (0.3mg/day). Christine Till, one of the study authors, told NPR, “Only boys were affected when we looked at urinary fluoride, but both boys and girls were affected when we looked at maternal fluoride intake or water fluoride concentration.”

Fluoride impacts the fetus as it crosses the placenta and accumulates in parts of the brain associated with learning and memory. Fluoride alters central nervous system proteins and neurotransmitters during the developmental phase.

Before fluoride dental products were widely available, the U.S. Public Health Service introduced water fluoridation in the 1950s to reduce dental problems. In 2015, the U.S. lowered the optimal fluoride concentration from 0.7-1.2mg/L to 0.7mg/L after overexposure to fluoride caused 68% of adolescents to have enamel fluorosis – a disorder characterized by hypomineralization of tooth enamel appearing as discoloration and sometimes causing physical damage to the tooth. The authors of this study note, “The beneficial effects of fluoride predominantly occur at the tooth surface after the teeth have erupted. Therefore, there is no benefit of systemic exposure to fluoride during pregnancy for the prevention of caries [tooth decay] in offspring. The evidence showing an association between fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores raises a possible new concern about cumulative exposures to fluoride during pregnancy, even among pregnant women exposed to optimally fluoridated water.”

David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, noted that the effect size is comparable to what is seen with childhood lead exposure. Bellinger told NPR that various routes of exposure should be considered, like food, tea and toothpaste. Black tea has a particularly high fluoride content (2.6 mg/L).

Additionally, Beyond Pesticides has often written about the importance of considering sulfuryl fluoride, more commonly known as vikane gas, in the analysis of fluoride tolerances. Sulfuryl fluoride is an inorganic chemical often used for the fumigation of closed structures such as barns, storage buildings, commercial warehouses, ships in port, and railroad cars and thus also found on their stored contents like grains and other crops. It is intended to target termites, powder post beetles, bedbugs, and other pests. It has been linked to cancer as well as neurological, developmental, and reproductive damages.  Expectant mothers can lower their exposure to fluoride on food by buying organic produce that bars the use of sulfuryl fluoride.

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

Sources: JAMA Pediatrics, NPR

(Beyond Pesticides, August, 20, 2019) Last week U.S. District Court Judge C.J. Williams sentenced Missouri resident Randy Constant to 10 years in prison for selling conventional grains he and his co-conspirators fraudulently passed off as certified organic. In his ruling, Judge Williams noted the scheme resulted in “extreme and incalculable damage” to consumers and public trust in the organic label. According to court filings, Mr. Constant made over $120 million in the scheme, much of it spent on vacations and trips to Las Vegas. The case highlights the importance of funding enforcement measures that ensure compliance with the organic certification process and the resulting price premium it confers to organic farmers.

Mr. Constant was convicted last December of one count of wire fraud, admitting that from 2010 to 2017, he misled customers who purchased grain at a silo he owned in Iowa called Jericho Solutions. Mr. Constant told customers that the grain they were purchasing was grown on certified organic fields he owned in Iowa or Nebraska, when in fact the grain was either not organic or mixed with non-organic grain.

“Thousands upon thousands of consumers paid for products they did not get and paid for products they did not want,” Judge Williams told the Associated Press (AP). “This has caused incalculable damage to the confidence the American public has in organic products.”

In order to become certified organic, farmers must develop and adhere to an organic systems plan and not apply any prohibited materials, including toxic pesticides, for a period of three years. Organic farmers must create an organic system plan detailing all practices and substances that will be used on the farm, and are required to keep detailed records to ensure compliance. Farmers must maintain careful records and pay a fee for annual inspections by an inspectors working for organic certification agencies.

Mr. Constant’s scheme undermined the integrity of this process and public trust in the USDA organic label. He was able to sell his fraudulent grain at significantly lower prices than others in the region, undercutting organic farmers working hard to follow certification requirements. According to reports, Mr. Constant’s scheme encompassed upwards of 7% of organic corn and 8% of organic soybeans grown in the year 2016.

“He saw the weakness in the system and he exploited it over and over again,” said US Attorney Jacob Schunk to the AP.

Mr. Constant enlisted three co-conspirators in his crime, all of whom were also sentenced to months-long prison terms. Court filings indicate he spent considerable sums gambling in Las Vegas. He also admitted to spending $2 million on three women in the City with whom he developed relationships. His wife and other relatives attended the sentencing date last week.

“The organic industry in this country is built in trust and I violated that trust,” Mr. Constant told the court, according to the AP report.

Although possibly the largest individual scam, this is not the first time the organic industry has dealt with fraud. A major report in the Washington Post in 2017 found three large overseas grain shipments, totaling 7% of annual organic corn and 4% of soybeans, imported to the US were fraudulently labeled as organic. The report led the National Organic Standards Board to unanimously adopt proposals to fight fraud in the industry (see Beyond Pesticides’ comments here).

Mr. Constant’s prosecution should be a warning for others trying to game a system based upon trust and integrity. When produced according to certification requirements, organic production is a boon for local economies, and boosts farmers’ bottom lines. As enforcement improves, the government must also provide more incentives for farmers to transition to organic, as this method of food production is critical to addressing our cascading environmental crises, including the insect apocalypse.

Don’t let fraudulent schemes stop you from supporting organic agriculture. Organic agriculture is much more rigorously monitored than the chemical-intensive conventional agriculture. When possible, buy from local organic farmers who you know and trust. Many certifiers are also certifying products that go against the spirit and intent of the organic production process, such as hydroponic produce or factory dairy or egg farms. So look for certifiers listed as fair, excellent or exemplary by the Cornucopia Institute’s certifier guide to uphold organic integrity. Insist on transparency and full disclosure in all aspects of organic production, certification, and oversight.

Stay in touch on the latest in organic regulations through Beyond Pesticides Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

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

Source: Associated Press, Dept of Justice

(Beyond Pesticides, August 19, 2019) The Trump Administration has reignited the attack on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), one of the most effective environmental laws in restoring threatened and endangered species and their habitat. This time the attack is coming through regulations that undermine the letter, spirit, and intent of ESA.

Ask your elected U.S. Representative and Senators to tell the Secretary of Interior that the assault on the Endangered Species Act threatens all living organisms.

The new rules announced by the administration this week will: (i) weaken the consultation process designed to prevent harm to endangered animals and their habitats from federal agency activities; (ii) curtail the designation of critical habitat and weakens the listing process for imperiled species; and (iii) eliminate all protections for wildlife newly designated as “threatened” under the Act.

With species declining across the globe, it is critical that we protect those already at heightened risk. An important provision of the ESA is the requirement that each federal agency that proposes to authorize, fund, or carry out an action that may affect a listed species or its critical habitat must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Although many species –including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and California condor— have been protected and brought back from the brink of extinction under the ESA, an estimated 500 species have disappeared in the past 200 years.

With these serious rollbacks, pesticide use will exacerbate the loss of species. The administration has now declined protection for more than 60 species and protected only 18 — the lowest of any president at this point in an administration.

“By shooting down protections for these imperiled plants and animals, Trump officials are displaying contempt for America’s natural heritage. This president is a threat to the future of endangered species and humans around the globe,” said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.

Ask your elected U.S. Representative and Senators to tell the Secretary of Interior that the assault on the Endangered Species Act threatens all living organisms.

Letter to Congress

The attack on the environment under the current administration threatens our very existence. The most recent attack on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) undermines a long-standing Congressional commitment across political parties to protect threatened and endangered species. The gutting of the letter, spirit, and intent of ESA, with the administration’s new rulemaking, threatens life as we know it.

Please let Interior Secretary David Bernhardt know that the changes adopted in the regulation of endangered species violate the law and must be reversed. It is critical that this concern be voiced in the face of this attack on the environment that sustains life.

The new rules announced by the administration this week will: (i) weaken the consultation process designed to prevent harm to endangered animals and their habitats from federal agency activities; (ii) curtail the designation of critical habitat and weakens the listing process for imperiled species; and (iii) eliminate all protections for wildlife newly designated as “threatened” under the Act.

With species declining across the globe, it is critical that we protect those already at heightened risk. An important provision of the ESA is the requirement that each federal agency that proposes to authorize, fund, or carry out an action that may affect a listed species or its critical habitat must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Although many species –including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and California condor— have been protected and brought back from the brink of extinction under the ESA, an estimated 500 species have disappeared in the past 200 years.

With these serious rollbacks, pesticide use will exacerbate the loss of species. The administration has now declined protection for more than 60 species and protected only 18 — the lowest of any president at this point in an administration.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 16, 2019) Chemical industry giant Monsanto used military-style surveillance and response tactics to target critics, newly released documents reveal. Disclosed as a result of ongoing court battles regarding the health impacts of the weed killer Roundup, internal communications from 2014-2017 highlight Monsanto’s “intelligence fusion center” that monitored potential threats to the industry and spread retaliatory responses through third-party sources.

As reported by The Guardian, there were numerous, alarming findings in the documents released via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). For instance, a spreadsheet titled, “Project Spruce: Carey Gillam Book” detailed a range of strategic responses in the lead-up to the release of Carey Gillam’s Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. This included paying Google to promote an existing blog post when users searched, “Monsanto Glyphosate Carey Gillam.” Additionally, the group wrote up “talking points” for third parties to critique the book and post negative reviews. Ms. Gillam noted in an op-ed, “Shortly after the book’s publication, dozens of “reviewers” suddenly posted one-star reviews sharing suspiciously similar themes and language. The efforts were not very successful as Amazon removed many reviews it deemed fake or improper.”

Internal emails exposed that Monsanto representatives would call editors of Ms. Gillam’s then-employer, Reuters, to complain and mount pressure on the institution regarding her reporting on their products and the lawsuits against them. Monsanto media relations executive Sam Murphy wrote in an email, “We continue to push back on her editors very strongly every chance we get, and we all hope for the day she gets reassigned.”

Ms.Gillam was not the only personality in the Monsanto spotlight – “Fusion Center” employees carefully observed and reported on singer Neil Young who produced a rebellious, environmentally-focused album called “The Monsanto Years.” The group monitored his social media accounts and considered legal action in retaliation.

U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), a non-profit investigative research group focused on the food industry, was threatening enough to Monsanto that it merited weekly reports. Monsanto was particularly concerned about the release of information regarding financial relationships with scientists that could be used as evidence that the industry was “covering up unflattering research.”

USRTK detailed the use of third-party sources Monsanto used to counteract the agency, noting:

• Deliverables in a “Comprehensive USRTK FOIA Preparedness and Reactive Plan” dated May 15, 2016 included plans for a “Third Party Content Creation (Forbes post);” an agenda to discuss the plan refers to “Proactive Training for independent experts via GMOA [GMO Answers]” and “allergenicity materials” including an infographic and blog/op eds to be “organized by MON distributed by GMOA”.
• Action items for “industry alignment” in the 2019 plan included requesting “online positioning” from the Center for Food Integrity, International Food Information Council, CropLife America, CropLife International, Ketchum PR and the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (page 6).

The law group Baum Hedland published more new documents for the public to review on August 15, 2019. According to the attorneys, “These documents reveal Monsanto’s efforts to defund IARC, their involvement with Reuter’s reporter Kate Kelland, the creation of their ‘Intelligence Fusion Center’ targeting journalists and activists critical of Monsanto, and more about their manipulating science.”

Ms. Gillam, now research director for USRTK, wrote in response to the industry attacks, “Truth and transparency are precious commodities, the foundations for the knowledge we all need and deserve about the world we live in. Without truth we cannot know what risks we face, what protections we must make for our families and our futures. When corporate power is so intensely brought to silence messengers, to manipulate the public record and public opinion, truth becomes stifled. And we should all be afraid.”

Watch Ms. Gillam’s talk, “Decades of Deceit,” from the 36^th National Pesticide Forum for more on Monsanto’s practices to cover up—through fraud, intimidation, ghostwriting agency documents—the science showing that glyphosate kills humans as well as weeds.

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

Source: The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2019) An article in the journal Plos One, “An assessment of acute insecticide toxicity loading (AITL) of chemical pesticides used on agricultural land in the United States,” shows that recent shifts in insecticide use—from organophosphates and carbamates to synthetic pyrethroids and neonicotinoids—have made a large contribution to the ongoing insect apocalypse. This shift to insecticides that target insects based on both selective toxicity and delivery method occurs within a context of shrinking habitat and biodiversity.

The study, by Michael DiBartolomeis, PhD, Susan Kegley, PhD, Pierre Mineau, PhD, Rosemarie Radford, and Kendra Klein, PhD, presents a measure of acute insecticide toxicity loading that incorporates acute toxicity, quantity used, and the rate at which the insecticide degrades. Goulson et al. applied a similar measure in Great Britain that did not incorporate the rate of degradation. Both studies use the median lethal dose (LD₅₀) to honey bees as a measure of acute toxicity and calculate the potential number of bee deaths based on the number of lethal doses of various insecticides applied in the field. In both cases, researchers used toxicity estimates for honey bees because they are widely available. Other insects may be more or less sensitive.

The two studies show that acutely toxic doses of insecticides used in agriculture in Great Britain and the U.S. increased by a factor of 3.9 to 48 over the study period (1992-2013 for DiBartolomeis et al.; 1990-2015 for Goulson et al.), depending on whether oral or contact toxicity was measured and whether degradates were included. Both studies show that this increase is due to the expansion of the use of neonicotinoid and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides.

The shift away from organophosphates and carbamates resulted from a focus on acute toxicity to human workers. As a result, newer insecticides concentrate their killing power with greater precision on insects—pollinators, predators, and parasites, as well as pests. The insecticides are not only selectively more toxic to insects, but in the case of the systemic insecticides, they are delivered directly to the insect through plant tissues, nectar, and pollen.

Unfortunately, acute toxicity is only part of the problem. The same insecticides have chronic effects that have been well documented: harm to reproduction, mobility, and navigation, as well as impairments to feeding, foraging, memory, and learning. Multiple pesticides are found within bee-collected pollen, and the effects of the combinations are often greater than the individual exposure.

In addition, this pesticide exposure is occurring within an agricultural system that systematically eliminates habitat and biodiversity. The common use of glyphosate-based herbicides in crops engineered to be tolerant to them, as well as drift and runoff of potent insecticides, results in fields and field margins that lack the habitat for insects—and the birds and others who eat them.

Insect populations and biodiversity in general suffer from climate change. The response to the problems in industrial agriculture have taken into account the possibility for food production to result in these wide-ranging adverse impacts. In each area, organic agriculture provides an answer to the industrial model. When organic principles are put into practice, soil sequesters carbon, land use fosters insect biodiversity, and pesticides are rarely employed. Studies show that organic farms sequester 13% more CO₂ than chemical-intensive farms. A white paper published by the Rodale Institute in 2014, Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming, argues that it is possible to sequester more than 100% of current annual CO₂ emissions by switching to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which are referred to in the paper as “regenerative organic agriculture.”

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

Source: PLOS ONE

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2019) Earlier this summer, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) released a free app to facilitate the reporting of pesticide incidents in the state. The app, CASPIR (California’s System for Pesticide Incident Reporting), is available for download on the Google Play or Apple iTunes app store and should work with most smart phone devices.  While improving pesticide incident reporting is a laudable accomplishment for CDPR, advocates argue that further action by elected and administrative officials is needed to reduce and eliminate toxic pesticide use so that these systems are not necessary.

CDPR has been increasingly criticized by environmental justice organizations for its response to pesticide incidents, particularly in at-risk and low-income communities, and this app appears to be a response by the agency to address these concerns. The app is bilingual, provides the ability for users to add photos and videos, and records the GPS location of the user. Nayamin Martinex, director of the Central California Environmental Justice Network, said in a press release, “We have seen that farmworkers, who are trying to report a pesticide incident at work, sometimes have difficulty describing the exact location of the fields. We are glad that CASPIR can help address this issue with its GPS system.”

Although continuous improvement is always needed, California is ahead of the vast majority of states in its establishment of publicly available pesticide use and incident reporting databases.

Beyond Pesticides receives dozens of calls each year from individuals who have been poisoned by pesticide use and are looking for resources to assist them. Many are unaware who to report these incidents to, or whether they can even report them at all (incidents should be reported to the state pesticide enforcement agency and EPA). It is critical to gather information about pesticide incidents in real-time or as soon as possible after spraying has occurred, but these are often times individuals are most distraught, and focused on seeking care rather than recording information. Apps like CASPIR can assist individuals in recording pertinent information quickly.

While reporting pesticide poisoning incidents is critical, resources for those affected are limited. Many doctors are unaware of the comprehensive manual, “Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings,” and treatment of chronic conditions and other complications from pesticide poisoning, such as multiple chemical sensitivity or toxicicant induced loss of tolerance remain at the margins of medical research.

The most effective method of preventing pesticide poisoning remains the elimination of their use in the first place. Organic practices, whether in agriculture or around the home, promote a path that prevents the use of toxic pesticides by working with, rather than against nature. By moving more and more towards organic technologies, we can stop the rampant poisoning of farmworkers, their communities, and the public at large.

Whether in California or any other state in the country, if you’re involved in a pesticide incident, follow the steps on Beyond Pesticides webpage “What to do in a Pesticide Emergency.” If you’re having trouble, contact the organization at [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

Despite living in the modern-day United States, farmworkers have the same life expectancy as individuals living in the 1850s—just 49 years old. Learn more about the impact of pesticide-intensive farming practices on the individuals that grow our food, and make up the backbone of our country’s agricultural economy by watching the Farmworkers, Families and Health panel discussion from Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum in Irvine, CA. Further information can also be found on the Agricultural Justice webpage.

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

Source: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is refusing to approve product labels that disclose that the herbicide glyphosate may cause cancer, according to a press release published last week. The move comes after the state of California listed glyphosate on its Prop 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm. Health advocates are condemning the decision as the latest in a long string of EPA actions aimed at benefiting industry at the expense of consumer and public health. Many are concerned that the incessant stream of industry-friendly decisions is eroding public trust in the agency and its ability to act as an independent regulator.

While a state judge gave the Prop 65 warning labels the go-ahead, a prior ruling from U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb in Sacramento placed a preliminary injunction on the California requirement that remains in place today. The state added glyphosate to its Prop 65 list after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designated the chemical as a group 2A carcinogen.  Under Prop 65, California regulators are required to provide “clear and reasonable” warning labels when any one of four requirements in the law are triggered. IARC’s designation by the state as an “authoritative body” thus prompted the listing.

In the agency’s press release, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler blasted the California law. “It is irresponsible to require labels on products that are inaccurate when EPA knows the product does not pose a cancer risk,” he said. “We will not allow California’s flawed program to dictate federal policy.”

The EPA statement also included a refrain of attacks on IARC, which it has used during the agency’s registration review for glyphosate-based products. It states, “EPA’s independent evaluation of available scientific data included a more extensive and relevant dataset than IARC considered during its evaluation of glyphosate, from which the agency concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

However, the bulk of the “more extensive and relevant dataset” analyzed by the agency were studies funded and produced by industry and not available to the public. IARC, for its part, has responded in detail to the criticisms from the agrichemical industry and EPA. IARC indicates that because its review is limited to studies in the public domain, its process “specifically excludes studies conducted by industry when these are publicly unavailable.”

However, industry studies that are published in scientific journals are considered by IARC, and the agency points to existing and developing policies on the international stage that are beginning to require industry-published studies be publicly accessible. Although EPA indicates these studies are available via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), manufacturers are reserved the right to significantly redact or refuse disclosure of this data, as often occurs. Further, EPA does not permit this information to be obtained through FOIA until a pesticide is already registered, making it impossible for the public to obtain potentially important health end-point information until after pesticide exposure could occur.

IARC makes a specific point to note that it “follows its current practice in order to enable others to scrutinize the basis of its decisions rather than relying on appeals to authority or trust.” Despite criticism from former coal industry lobbyist and current EPA Administrator Wheeler, IARC research is still seen as a highly credible source of cancer information, and IARC continues to stand by its findings on glyphosate.

“The company has the responsibility for maintaining the accuracy of its label,”  Michael Baum, managing partner of the Los Angeles law firm Baum Hedlund, which has successfully litigated cancer claims against glyphosate manufacturer Bayer Monsanto, told the San Francisco Chronicle. He told the paper that “Trump is ‘ignoring what the law says and neither he nor the EPA can override what Congress said is the company’s responsibility in the code of regulations for labeling. We can hold Monsanto accountable for anything that’s false, misleading or negligent … and failing to notify consumers that the active ingredients in Roundup is a carcinogen would be negligent.’”

EPA is providing glyphosate registrants 90 days from August 7 to remove Prop 65 warning labels from their products. But ultimately, EPA’s overzealous attempts to protect the pesticide industry may be setting manufacturers up for even more legal problems down the line.

If you are frustrated by EPA’s inaction on glyphosate and other toxic pesticides, take it to your state and local lawmakers.  Contact your local government now to stop the use of hazardous chemicals in favor of safer, organic practices. Click based on your region of the country below:

WEST

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

MIDWEST

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

SOUTH

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

NORTH EAST

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

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

Source: EPA Press Release, San Francisco Chronicle

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2019) Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected the evidence provided by independent scientists and sided with the pesticide industry promoting its products; this time, removing a safety for factor for children on some of the most widely used insecticides, synthetic pyrethroids. When EPA cannot do its job, it is time for Congress to step in.

Tell Congress: To Protect Children, EPA Must Consider the Independent Peer-Reviewed Science, Not Bend to Industry Lobbying.

In a move that challenges the preponderance of independent peer-reviewed scientific findings on children’s health, EPA recently stripped away protections that limit children’s exposure to class of chemicals associated with childhood cancer, autism other learning disorders, and asthma. The result of the agency’s actions will be a dramatic increase in the use of synthetic pyrethroids, insecticides found in indoor and outdoor bug sprays, bug bombs, and often used on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. EPA, under the leadership of former fossil fuel lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, is embracing the positions of the pesticide industry while ignoring independent science and health and environmental groups.

In 2017, the agrichemical industry trade group, Croplife America, submitted comments to EPA during its review of synthetic pyrethroids. The organization urged EPA to rely on a health model developed by a different industry group, the Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA), in determining the “safety factor” to apply to children. “Safety factors” for children are required under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), unless there is compelling evidence indicating the additional margin of safety is unnecessary. These factors generally require manufacturers to lower label application rates of a pesticide active ingredient by 3 to 10 times in order to safeguard the health of developing infants, toddlers, and children. Since the safety factors are intended to account for unknown effects, it is notable that EPA’s manual, Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning, points out, “Little or no research has been done on the neurodevelopmental effects of other common agents, such as pyrethroids commonly used in households and agriculture.”

EPA’s decision to lower the safety factor on synthetic pyrethroids from 3x to 1x for children under 6 years of age will permit children’s exposure rates to these widely used chemicals to triple.

Tell Congress: To Protect Children, EPA Must Consider the Independent Peer-Reviewed Science, Not Bend to Industry Lobbying.

Letter to Congress

Once again, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected the evidence provided by independent scientists in favor of the pesticide industry promoting its products; this time, removing a safety for factor for children on some of the most widely used insecticides, synthetic pyrethroids. When EPA cannot do its job, it is time for Congress to step in. Please tell EPA to retain the 3X safety factor for synthetic pyrethroids.

In a move that challenges the preponderance of independent peer-reviewed scientific findings on children’s health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently stripped away protections that limit children’s exposure to class of chemicals associated with childhood cancer, autism and other learning disorders, and asthma. The result of the agency’s actions will be a dramatic increase in the use of synthetic pyrethroids, insecticides found in indoor and outdoor bug sprays, bug bombs, and often used on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. EPA, under the leadership of former fossil fuel lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, is embracing the positions of the pesticide industry while ignoring independent science and health and environmental groups.

In 2017, the agrichemical industry trade group, Croplife America, submitted comments to EPA during its review of synthetic pyrethroids. The organization urged EPA to rely on a health model developed by a different industry group, the Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA), in determining the “safety factor” to apply to children. “Safety factors” for children are required under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), unless there is compelling evidence indicating the additional margin of safety is unnecessary. These factors generally require manufacturers to lower label application rates of a pesticide active ingredient by 3 to 10 times in order to safeguard the health of developing infants, toddlers, and children. Since the safety factors are intended to account for unknown effects, it is notable that EPA’s manual, Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning, points out, “Little or no research has been done on the neurodevelopmental effects of other common agents, such as pyrethroids commonly used in households and agriculture.”

EPA’s decision to lower the safety factor on synthetic pyrethroids from 3x to 1x for children under 6 years of age will permit children’s exposure rates to these widely used chemicals to triple.

Please tell EPA to reject decision-making based on pesticide industry lobbying and base decisions on independent science. Tell EPA to retain the 3X safety factor for synthetic pyrethroids.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 9, 2019) A recent study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrates a food chain vector for exposure of beneficial insects to neonicotinoid pesticides — the invasive mealybug, in this case. The finding may also be relevant for other phloem-feeding hemipterans, which can feed on neonicotinoid-contaminated plants and excrete so-called “honeydew” that is then consumed by beneficial insects. A primary “fix” for the decimation of insects and pollinators — caused chiefly by pesticide use, habitat destruction, and impacts of a rapidly changing climate — is, of course, the cessation of use of these toxic compounds in agriculture.

The most common route of exposure of beneficial insects to neonicotinoids is through contaminated floral nectar and pollen. The discovery of this “honeydew” vector is important because it could potentially affect far more insects than nectar and pollen consumption, given that honeydew is more abundant, especially in agricultural fields. Pollinators such as honey bees, solitary bees, bumblebees, and even birds have been observed feeding on honeydew.

Neonicotinoids represent more than 20% of the insecticides used worldwide; they are used on crops such as citrus, cotton, oilseed rape, soybean, fruits, potatoes, rice, corn, sunflowers (for seed), ornamentals, fruits, and greenhouse vegetables. The impacts of neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticide exposures on non-target organisms, and on various kinds of bees, in particular, have been well established and reviewed by Beyond Pesticides and many others.

Such exposures happen both directly, via application to plants and soils, and indirectly, through the food chain. The researchers, working out of Spain and The Netherlands, found that, “Neonicotinoids reach and kill beneficial insects when they feed on the most abundant carbohydrate source for insects in agroecosystems, honeydew. Honeydew is the excretion product of phloem-feeding hemipteran insects such as aphids, mealybugs, whiteflies, or psyllids.”

The study team applied two commonly used neonic insecticides, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, on two batches of potted clementine trees. One batch received the insecticides via application to the soil (the most common application mode) at the recommended concentrations; to the other, the compounds were applied as a foliar spray, although at 50% of the recommended concentrations, in order to assess the effects when low doses of neonicotinoids reach honeydew producers. A third batch was “treated” with distilled water as a control.

Researchers then released small hordes of Planococcus citri, or the citrus mealybug, onto the trees to feed on them. Then, the beneficial insects Sphaerophoria rueppellii, or hoverfly (a pollinator in the adult stage and a predator in the juvenile stage) and Anagyrus pseudococci, a parasitic wasp, were fed with honeydew excreted by the mealybugs.

Results were bad news for beneficial hoverflies and parasitic wasps. Every hoverfly that ate honeydew from the thiamethoxam-sprayed trees died within three days of exposure, compared to 10% of the control group. Of the hoverflies that consumed honeydew from the trees soil-treated with thiamethoxam, nearly 70% died, compared with 14% for the controls. Results for the parasitic wasps were marginally better: more than 50% died after consuming honeydew from both soil- and foliar-treated trees, compared with less than 20% mortality among controls. The honeydew itself was also evaluated: samples from trees treated with thiamethoxam were highly toxic to both species of beneficial insects, and honeydew from those treated with imidacloprid was moderately toxic to hoverflies.

The researchers conclude that honeydew could be an important additional route of insecticide exposure for beneficial insects, including pollinators. They add that this vector of exposure could affect a much broader range of beneficial insects than contaminated nectar and pollen, and therefore, should be included in future environmental risk assessments.

This concern can now be added to the myriad threats contributing to the “insect apocalypse.” The role of industrial agriculture in creating these toxic risks to insects, never mind to human and environmental health broadly, is huge. In the U.S., in 2011 and 2012, 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides were used, primarily on crops; worldwide, the usage figure for the same period was nearly 6 billion pounds. (Tellingly, it’s difficult to find more-recent figures on use.) As Beyond Pesticides recently reported, “Multi-national agrichemical industries — companies like Bayer Monsanto, DowDupont, Syngenta, and the umbrella organization Croplife, that pervade our food system — share much of the blame. But through public pressure and consumer choice, we can shift towards alternative products and practices, improve biodiversity, and begin to repair the damage done by industrial agriculture.”

That shift — to organic and regenerative agriculture — must be a primary goal. Such a transition will benefit our pollinators, biodiversity at large, the health and functionality of natural environmental systems, human health, and even the ravages of a changing climate. The public can support the transition through consumer choices and public advocacy. Closer to home, learn about managing pests in non-agricultural environments without use of neonic insecticides. There are steps to take to support pollinators, including avoidance of toxic products; in 2013, Beyond Pesticides provided a list of such products.

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

Sources: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/30/1904298116 and https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/tiny-insect-could-be-delivering-toxic-pesticides-honey-bees-and-other-beneficial-bugs

(Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2019) The Food and Drug Association (FDA) recently approved the Impossible Burger, sparking a debate among environmentalists and lovers of plant-based meat products. The burger, manufactured by the Impossible Foods Group, is comprised of genetically engineered soy and heme (iron-containing molecule that is a component of hemoglobin and common to plants and animals). It contains over 11.3 times the amount of glyphosate residue as its counterpart, the non-GMO Beyond Burger. Spurring more controversy, the Impossible Foods Group recently attacked regenerative agricultural practices that advocates say are part of the solution to the current food system and climate crises.

Impossible Foods Group uses genetically engineered soy that is resistant to herbicides such as glyphosate. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has recently taken the pesticide spotlight as over 18,000 plaintiffs are suing the agricultural giant Bayer over diagnoses of cancer and other diseases allegedly caused by use of their products. Ingestion or exposure to glyphosate can increase risk of cancer, disrupt estrogen, harm gut bacteria, and jeopardize overall health. Pesticide residues end up in food, and runoff or drift from agricultural fields contaminates soil, air, and water. The spraying of these chemicals can also endanger nearby operations that opt for pesticide free practices, such as organic agriculture and important soybean research.

Impossible Foods Group claims that genetically engineered soy is integral to their patty’s beefiness. However, it appears real beef produced in a regenerative agriculture system may be the true winner for beefiness and for the environment. Impossible Foods group recently attacked this method in an article calling it the “clean coal” of beef production. Contrary to this claim, regenerative agriculture is environmentally conscious, using land management that voids tillage and bare soil, integrates livestock, and fosters on-farm diversity. These practices rebuild soil organic matter and biodiversity, enabling soil to sequester more carbon than conventional soil laden with pesticides.

To prove their product’s superiority, Impossible Food Group hired a third party group of scientists at Quanits to conduct a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) analyzing the environmental impact of their product vs conventional beef from conception to consumption. The results show that the Impossible Burger produces 89% fewer GHG emissions than conventional beef. However, Quantis also conducted an LCA at White Oaks Pasture and found that beef produced in their regenerative agricultural system is carbon negative. Their system produces over 100% less CO2 than both conventional beef or the Impossible Burger: For every 1kg of beef produced at the farm, their overall system, including the soil and their vegetation, removes 3.5 kg of CO2 from the atmosphere. It bears mention that regenerative agriculture does not necessarily mean organic – there is overlap and controversy within this field, as well.

Although plant-based meat alternatives serve an important role in reducing carbon emissions related to meat production, Beyond Pesticides encourages members and the public to choose wisely. Not all plant-based meat substitutes are made equally, and given that the Impossible Burger contains glyphosate residues, uses genetically engineered soy sprayed with pesticides, and is more carbon-intensive than regenerative agriculture, it may not be the best choice. Additionally, Impossible Foods Group continues to strongly advocate for use of genetically engineered crops, falsely insisting on both safety and necessity.

Beyond Pesticides ultimately supports a transition away from toxic pesticides toward organic practices that promote pest resilience and eliminate the need for toxic chemicals. When the Impossible Burger hits the shelves in grocery stores later this year, Beyond Pesticides urges consumers to continue to avoid products that greenwash and promote pesticide-intensive agriculture. To learn more about organic foods and ways to support organic practices and the movement away from pesticides, visit our Eating with a Conscience webpage.

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

Sources: Civil Eats, Eater, Moms Across America

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2019) A study conducted by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) finds that children carry significantly higher levels of glyphosate in their bodies than their parents. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer Monsanto’s Roundup, has been identified as probably carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.  In the context of recent data from the American Cancer Society (ACS) indicating that pediatric cancer in the U.S. surged by almost 50% from 1975 to 2015, many parents are worried, and looking for ways to reduce their children’s exposure to glyphosate and other toxic pesticides.

The study conducted by CEH enrolled eleven families from all over the U.S., testing levels of glyphosate in children’s urine as compared to their parents. Results showed that over 90% of participants had been recently exposed to glyphosate. In most child/parent pairs, the child’s body had surprisingly higher concentrations of glyphosate (up to 4 times that of the parent), supporting research that glyphosate poses a greater threat to children.

Children may be more susceptible to glyphosate for a variety of reasons. Children are growing, so they take in more of everything (from food, to water, to pesticides) per pound of body weight. Kids also spend more time closer to the ground crawling or playing, which increases risk of exposure. Additionally, since glyphosate alters protein synthesis, it can especially impact children as they are undergoing biological and physiological changes.

Simon Strong and Vilma Tarazona Strong have spent the four years since the death of their 12-year-old son Oliver from acute myeloid leukemia advocating for research on the causes and confounding variables of pediatric cancer. Mr. Strong told reporters of the Guardian that he realized he had been quietly encouraged to think that cancer is the result of “bad luck and dodgy genes” rather than “triggered by external agents that damage our DNA and the body’s ability to deal with that damage.”

Unfortunately, that viewpoint pervades the American Cancer Society’s webpage on risk factors for childhood cancer. While ACS is for the most part silent on the impact of pesticides on childhood cancer, the Canadian Cancer Society recognizes these risks. A broader conversation about environmentally induced cancers is critical, as ACS estimates that about 11,060 children in the US under the age of 15 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer this year.

While Oliver’s parents, like many, do not know specifically what caused their son’s cancer, research led them to understand that his exposure to pesticides on turf fields may have played a role. Oliver’s father told the Guardian that he now regrets using Roundup on their patio, and that “Oliver’s brother Edward said they both hated the smell of that stuff.” He said once he looked at the container and saw that it contained glyphosate he looked it up. “[I] saw it was declared a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. And we all know now about the jury verdicts regarding glyphosate” he said, referencing recent court cases that have linked glyphosate to cancer. Although the manufacturer, Bayer, continues to insist the product is safe, they are currently fielding lawsuits from over 18,400 plaintiffs who complain of cancer and other ailments caused by use of and exposure to the product

Oliver’s parents started a project called “The Reasons Why” to connect families who experience cases of pediatric cancer, assess causal factors, and delve into the impact that chemical exposure can have on children. Private research projects, like the Strong’s, are increasingly important as federal funding for pediatric cancer work has taken a serious hit under the Trump administration. President Trump announced in February a $500 million appropriation over 10 years, which pales in comparison to President Obama’s $1.8 billion, seven-year investment.

Communities all over America are questioning their local air and water quality and possible toxin exposure. From Michigan to Indiana to Pennsylvania, people are taking note of rising cases of pediatric cancer and other diseases. Beyond Pesticides encourages individuals to take precautions and avoid hazardous pesticides to reduce risk of cancer. The best way to minimize this risk is to shop organic, as studies have found that levels of pesticide metabolites in urine drop precipitously when switching to an all organic diet. If you think you have been exposed to pesticides, visit Beyond Pesticides’ What to do in a Pesticide Emergency page, and take measures to prevent future exposure. Additionally, concerned parents are encouraged to advocate for pesticide-free land management practices and to question service providers about their practices and products to ensure toxic chemicals are not used on your property. And, of course, adopt organic practices in the management of your lawn and garden and encourage your town to adopt organic land management practices for their parks, playing fields, medians, and open space.

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

Source: The Guardian, Center for Environmental Health

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2019) In a move that challenges the preponderance of independent peer-reviewed scientific findings on children’s health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently stripped away protections that limit children’s exposure to a class of chemicals associated with childhood cancer, autism, and other learning disorders. The result of the agency’s actions will dramatically increase the use of synthetic pyrethroids, insecticides found in indoor and outdoor bug sprays, bug bombs, and often used on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. EPA, under the leadership of former fossil fuel lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, is embracing the positions of the pesticide industry while ignoring independent science and health and environmental groups.

In 2017, the agrichemical industry trade group, Croplife America, submitted comments to EPA during its review of synthetic pyrethroids. The organization urged EPA to rely on a health model developed by a different industry group, known as the Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA), in determining the “safety factor” to apply to children. “Safety factors” for children are required under a 1996 law, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), unless there is compelling evidence indicating the additional margin of safety is unnecessary. These factors generally require manufacturers to lower label application rates of a pesticide active ingredient by 3 to 10 times in order to safeguard the health of developing infants, toddlers, and children.

EPA’s decision to lower the safety factor on synthetic pyrethroids from 3x to 1x for children under 6 years of age will permit children’s exposure rates to these widely used chemicals to triple.

In the lead up to this decision, other nongovernmental organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, submitted comments urging the agency to retain higher safety factors on synthetic pyrethroids in order to adequately protect children’s health. In reviewing the epidemiological literature on the health impact of this chemical class, EPA looked at hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, but only incorporated two into its determination. The vast majority of studies reviewed by EPA were considered low quality by the agency’s subjective criteria, and effectively ignored.

Instead, the agency prioritized methodology put forth by CAPHRA and encouraged by Croplife. Under the CAPHRA model, pyrethroids were estimated to be metabolized by children at the same rate as adults. Children are more vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure than adults, given that they take in more chemical relative to body weight, and have organs systems whose development is disrupted.

But the data show significant risks to children from exposure to pyrethroid insecticides. A range of studies have found associations between pyrethroid exposure and learning and behavioral disorders. Research published last month found that pregnant mothers with higher concentrations of pyrethroids in their urine were more likely to have children who develop ADHD symptoms. This is directly in line with a 2015 study from Rutgers University. Pesticides in the pyrethroid class have also been linked to externalizing and internalizing disorders, elevated scores on behavioral and emotional conduct tests, and lower scores on cognitive motor development tests.

A 2014 study conducted by researchers at the University of California Davis determined that living near a field where pyrethroids were applied during a woman’s third trimester corresponded with an 87% increased risk of having a child with autism. EPA ranked this study of low quality, indicating the study’s methodological approach had “not been fully validated” and that it lacked the ability to distinguish between pyrethroids specifically and pesticide use in general. As with other instances, the finding of an effect in the absence of certainty led EPA to defer to industry interests rather than precaution.

Research has also implicated pyrethroids in the development of leukemia in infants after maternal exposure to the pesticides during pregnancy. Conducted by Brazilian researchers in 2012, the study found children are twice as likely to develop the rare cancer if their mothers were exposed three months before conception, when compared to mothers who reported no exposures. A mother’s exposure at any time to the synthetic pyrethroid permethrin, classified as a likely carcinogen by EPA, also raised the cancer risk for infants. EPA found this study to be of moderate quality, with the agency indicating that recall bias was an important limitation and that, “mothers of the children with leukemia may differentially recall past pesticide exposure, relative to mothers of the children without leukemia.” EPA provided no proof that this was a widespread trend in epidemiological reporting.

EPA found every reason to reject peer-reviewed science in favor of a determination that expanded uses of highly toxic pyrethroid insecticides. In the face of EPA inaction, it is up to residents and local communities to implement needed protections. Never use synthetic pyrethroids, particularly dangerous and ineffective bug bombs, in or around one’s home. Instead, look to ManageSafe to prevent pest problems before they start, and address them with the softest approach possible if they do. At the community level, work toward policies that eliminate not only synthetic pyrethroids but the broad range of toxic EPA-registered pesticides on the market, in favor of organic practices. Take action by pledging to fight for community pesticide reform today.

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

Source: EPA, Center for Biological Diversity press release

(Beyond Pesticides, August 5, 2019) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appears to have forgotten the lesson learned 20 years ago when it was forced to ban genetic engineering (GE) in organic regulations. At a July 17 hearing called by the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research on “Assessing the Effectiveness of the National Organic Program,” Greg Ibach, the USDA’s Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, stated, “There is the opportunity to open the discussion to consider whether it is appropriate for some of these new technologies, including gene editing, to be eligible to be used to enhance organic production.”

In 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a draft rule that would have allowed GE, irradiation, and sewage sludge (the “Big Three”) in organic production, which was met by the second largest number of comments the agency had ever received—well before the days of internet advocacy—overwhelmingly opposing the inclusion of the “Big Three.”  The prohibition of gene editing falls under the “excluded methods” provision of the organic regulations. The law prohibits “a variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes, and are not considered compatible with organic production.” (7 CFR 205.2) These prohibited methods include cell fusion, micro- and macro-encapsulation and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology).

Ask Members of Congress to Remind USDA that Genetic Engineering Is NOT Acceptable in Organic!

There are many problems with GE, and consumers trust the organic label to provide food free of GE. USDA has long promoted GE, but has avoided pushing it in organic since the run-in with organic producers and consumers over the Big Three. Former Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, for example, promoted a policy of “coexistence” between GE and organic producers. In this regard, organic producers are joined by others who choose not to grow GE crops because they limit export sales.

Unfortunately, even USDA’s “coexistence” policy threatens the genetic and chemical integrity of organic food. In practice, “coexistence” means that those who develop and use GE technology are not held accountable for the damage they cause. The damage includes that arising from both genetic drift—which can make organic crops unsaleable in the organic marketplace—and chemical drift arising from the increased use of chemicals in GE-chemical intensive cropping systems. Any standard of acceptable use of technology would require control over the consequences. If the technology cannot be controlled, it should not be used.

Organic systems are modeled on natural ecosystems. GE organisms belong in neither:

• GE is based on an out-of-date theory of “one gene—one effect” and ignores pleiotropy. Thus, a gene that makes a plant tolerant of glyphosate is assumed not to have other effects that might be important ecologically or nutritionally. Even the effect of herbicide tolerance itself may result in the presence of toxic metabolites of the herbicide in food.
• Traditional breeding, like evolution itself, depends on forces acting on the whole organism. Exposure over time to different environments exposes unexpected traits. GE plants are created by manipulation of DNA that may create unanticipated results—results that may not be apparent until, for example, the plant is grown under unforeseen conditions.
• Risks associated with GE crops cannot be predicted.
• While the GE/chemical industry has created many claims to virtue for GE crops, the net effect of GE-based agriculture has been an expansion in the use of pesticides and subsequent resistance to pesticides—in other words, the pesticide treadmill.

Nearly half of all consumers in the U.S. say they avoid buying GE foods, and the growth of the organic sector—now more than $50 billion per year in sales—offers those consumers the choice they want.

Ask Members of Congress to Remind USDA that Genetic Engineering Is NOT Acceptable in Organic!

Letter to Congress

On July 17, Greg Ibach, the USDA’s Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, stated, “There is the opportunity to open the discussion to consider whether it is appropriate for some of these new technologies, including gene editing, to be eligible to be used to enhance organic production.” I am writing to ask that you let Under Secretary Greg Ibach know his statement is unacceptable and challenges a foundation of organic principles and values.

Evidently, Mr. Ibach has forgotten the reaction 20 years ago, when the USDA published a draft organic rule that would have allowed genetic engineering (GE), irradiation, and sewage sludge (the “Big Three”) in organic production. The suggestion was met by the largest number of comments the agency had ever received, overwhelmingly opposing the inclusion of the “Big Three.”

That is why the final organic regulations include a provision prohibiting “excluded methods,” which are “a variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes, and are not considered compatible with organic production.” (7 CFR 205.2)

There are many problems with GE, and consumers know that they can trust the organic label to provide food free of GE. USDA has long promoted GE, but since the run-in with organic producers and consumers over the Big Three, avoided pushing GE in organic. Former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, for example, promoted a policy of “coexistence” between GE and organic producers. In this regard, organic producers are joined by others who choose not to grow GE crops because they limit export sales.

Unfortunately, even USDA’s “coexistence” policy threatens the genetic and chemical integrity of organic food. In practice, “coexistence” means that those who develop and use GE technology are not held accountable for the damage they cause. The damage includes that arising from both genetic drift—which can make organic crops unsaleable in the organic marketplace—and chemical drift arising from the increased use of chemicals in GE-chemical intensive cropping systems. Any standard of acceptable use of technology would require control over the consequences. If the technology cannot be controlled, it should not be used.

Organic systems are modeled on natural ecosystems. GE organisms belong in neither:

GE is based on an out-of-date theory of “one gene–one effect” and ignores pleiotropy. Thus, a gene that makes a plant tolerant of glyphosate is assumed not to have other effects that might be important ecologically or nutritionally. Even the effect of herbicide tolerance itself may result in the presence of toxic metabolites of the herbicide in food.

Traditional breeding, like evolution itself, depends on forces acting on the whole organism. Exposure over time to different environments exposes unexpected traits. GE plants are created by manipulation of DNA that may create unanticipated results—results that may not be apparent until, for example, the plant is grown under unforeseen conditions.

Risks associated with GE crops cannot be predicted.

While the GE/chemical industry has created many claims to virtue for GE crops, the net effect of GE-based agriculture has been an expansion in the use of pesticides and subsequent resistance to pesticides—in other words, the pesticide treadmill.

Nearly half of all consumers in the U.S. say they avoid buying GE foods, and the growth of the organic sector—now more than $50 billion per year in sales—offers those consumers the choice they want.

USDA should abandon efforts to insert GE into organic and instead devote efforts to controlling the technology so that it does not injure organic farmers or the environment.

Thank you for your attention to this issue.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 2, 2019) Advocates of organic agriculture, including Beyond Pesticides, are sounding a “yellow alert” on the heels of recent comments, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Greg Ibach, before the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research. In his remarks, Mr. Ibach opened the door to consideration of allowing new gene-editing technologies to be permitted under the federal National Organic Program (NOP) and its standards. He said, “As the National Organic Standards Board set the rules originally, GMOs are not eligible to be in the organic program. However, we’ve seen new technology, including gene-editing, that accomplishes things in shorter periods of time than a natural breeding process can. I think there is the opportunity to open the discussion to consider whether it is appropriate for some of these new technologies that include gene-editing to be eligible to be used to enhance organic production and to have drought and disease-resistant varieties, as well as higher-yield varieties available.”

The National Organic Standards (NOS), promulgated in 2002 (on the basis of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990) by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) — on which Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman sat from 2010 to 2015) — now prohibit genetically engineered crops in certified organic agriculture. The history of genetic engineering and organics goes back to 1990, when USDA proposed an initial, and much-criticized, iteration of a set of rules about organic agriculture; those rules not only permitted genetically bioengineered (GE or GMO) crops, but also, allowed use of sewage sludge and irradiation. After significant public outcry and an historic number of public comments, the final rule proscribed all three.

In the NOSB Policy and Procedures Manual, “Principles of Organic Production and Handling,” section 1.11, states: “Genetic engineering (recombinant and technology) is a synthetic process designed to control nature at the molecular level, with the potential for unforeseen consequences. As such, it is not compatible with the principles of organic agriculture (either production or handling). Genetically engineered/modified organisms (GE/GMOs) and products produced by or through the use of genetic engineering are prohibited.”

Proponents say gene editing is different from the GE processes that have been used widely in non-organic agriculture to date. Those GE techniques typically have employed gene transfer — moving selected genes for some desirable trait from one plant (or bacteria) species into another. A well-known example is Monsanto’s iconic Roundup Resistant soybean: its genetically engineered resistance to the impacts of glyphosate allowed use of the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup to kill weeds without killing the soybean plant. With wide adoption of the seed, Roundup’s use spiked, as did the inevitable issue of glyphosate resistance in the soybean plant itself.

GE is based on an out-of-date theory of “one gene–one effect” and ignores pleiotropy. Thus, a gene that makes a plant tolerant of glyphosate is assumed not to have other effects that might be important ecologically or nutritionally. Even the effect of herbicide tolerance itself may result in the presence of toxic metabolites of the herbicide in food.

Gene editing is described as different from gene transfer GE technology. It is described by a National Geographic article as simply the removal of certain bits of DNA (genes) from a plant cell’s genome “in order to control traits. The cell’s genetic structure then repairs itself automatically, minus the targeted gene.” The changes to the genome made by gene editing are permanent — they are passed on to the seeds the edited plant will generate. As various new gene editing technologies — such as TALENs, CRISPR-Cas9, and ZFN — have become available, industry has touted them as the next agricultural revolution, promising outcomes from increased yields, disease resistance, and crops that don’t trigger allergies, to better flavors and nutrition, decreased fat content, and drought resistance, among many potential benefits.

Last year (2018) saw the entry of the first gene-edited crop in the U.S. — rapeseed, the seed source of canola oil. The Guardian reports that more are coming down the pike, including a shelf-stable soybean oil whose oil will contain less saturated fat (from Minnesota-based Calyxt), and an improved variety of waxy corn that is used as a thickener and stabilizer in food products (from Corteva Agriscience, the agriculture division of DowDuPont).

Federal regulators at USDA have said that because such crops don’t contain “foreign” DNA, they should not require the (already inadequate) regulation and testing required for GMOs. The European Union’s highest court sees it differently: the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in Luxembourg ruled in late July that gene-edited crops must be regulated by the same strict rules as are conventional GMOs in Europe. USDA said in June that it would not regulate crops whose genetic changes could have been produced with conventional breeding — those that have been gene-edited. Some scientists consider these processes to be humanly accelerated versions of what can happen through more conventional breeding means, providing some of the rationale for the potential ruling. A different federal agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suggested it might treat all intentionally edited food products as drugs, which could mean far more intensive oversight and regulation.

Meanwhile, Beyond Pesticides and other advocates in the organic community are clear: gene editing, for the purposes of regulation of organics, should be included in the definition of genetic engineering, and has no place in organic production or in the National Organic Standards. Further, the myriad issues surrounding GE technologies and GMOs — health and environment impacts, contamination of organic production, resistance, and labeling, among others, should be far more seriously addressed, and regulation decisions based on science rather than on benefit to industry.

In July, Beyond Pesticides wrote in a Daily News Blog entry, “All genetically engineered (GE) organisms — plants, animals, or microorganisms — should be subjected to systematic assessments of human and environmental effects and indirect economic effects (such as contamination of organic or non-GE crops leading to rejection in foreign markets, spread of resistant pests, etc.) before being allowed on the market. These assessments must be made available to the public for comment. All products from GE organisms in the marketplace should be labeled as such to allow consumer choice and to permit tracking of unintended health effects. Companies that develop GE organisms should be required to disclose any GE trait, marker genes, or other genetic constructs that might be present in a commercial GE seed product, including traits and genes for obsolete, no-longer-marketed traits. In addition, the definition of genetic engineering should be broad enough to include all the newer genetic engineering techniques, such as RNAi or the new gene-editing technologies (such as CRISPR-cas9, TALEN, ZNF, and meganucleases).”

Organic agriculture is a safe and implementable approach to food production that eliminates many of the risks of chemical and GE farming and food products. The burgeoning popularity of organically grown food is no surprise, given all the downsides of the chemical-intensive, monocultural practices of industrial agriculture. To have genuine consumer choice, the public needs to trust what the certified organic label represents. As genetically engineered technologies and products proliferate, even absent adequate assessment, protecting the integrity of that organic label is critical. During the House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research’s mid-July hearing on assessing the effectiveness of the NOP, the House committe chair, Rep. Stacey Plaskett, said, “The power of the organic seal is in its integrity — in the trust that consumers place in it. It’s our job here in Washington, both here and at USDA, to ensure we’re safeguarding the integrity of the National Organic Program.”

Under Secretary Ibach’s comments portend an alarming violation of that trust and integrity. Stay engaged on this and other developments in organics, biotechnology in agriculture, and the integrity of the organic label through Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog and journal, Pesticides and You.

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

Source: https://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/should-gene-editing-be-part-of-organic-production-usda-opens-debate.html

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2019) Last month, the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture approved the registration of 51 additional hazardous pesticides and brought the total to 262 newly approved pesticides this year. Moreover, Brazil’s health surveillance agency, Anvisa, approved new rules that establish risk of death as the singular criteria for determining toxicity of pesticides. Human Rights Watch, a nonprofit that conducts local investigations, reports that the government has simultaneously been unresponsive to incidents of pesticide poisoning. Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonoro, is known for his far-right politics, and has been accused of corruption, scandals, and disregard for the environment.

This rapid registration of novel pesticides is unprecedented in Brazil. Many of the products are generic versions of existing formulas, with government officials seeking to lower the price of pesticides. Products include insecticides with the active ingredient sulfoxaflor, a bee-toxic pesticide that has also recently gained traction in the U.S. despite pushback from beekeepers and environmentalists. While an American license for a pesticide, for example, lasts 15 years, Brazilian registration of pesticides never expires. Generic products lower the price barrier to amplified use of these interminable, toxic pesticides.

In 1989, Brazil established one of the toughest pesticide laws in the world that included utilizing the precautionary principle in evaluation and registration standards. However, the proliferation of large-scale, monocrop farming has directly increased use of pesticides, and enforcement has not kept up with the boom. According to advocates, laws in place to protect residents are often ignored, and pesticide poisoning is a growing concern. Last November, there was a record poisoning in which 96 people, including 50 children, were hit by a drifting cloud of paraquat—an herbicide that is extremely acutely toxic because it causes lung fibrosis and is also directly linked to Parkinson’s disease. Paraquat has been banned in the EU since 2007, but remains legal in countries such as Brazil and the U.S.

Repórter Brasil states, “The case is also part of a national phenomenon: the intoxication of children in rural areas. From 2008 to 2017 DataSUS recorded 130 confirmed poisonings of children under 14 by pesticides. This number only takes into account environmental poisoning, i.e., when poison is carried by wind, water or in contact with soil and plants. However […] it is estimated that for each reported case 50 will not be reported. That is, the number of children environmentally contaminated by pesticides in ten years may have reached 6.5 thousand—an average of more than one intoxicated child per day in Brazil.”

A powerful agribusiness lobby has been diligently working on influencing politicians to loosen pesticide restrictions in Brazil for many years. With new toxicity standards removing anything but death from the picture, this trend of rapid pesticide registration and rural poisonings is likely to continue under Bolsonaro’s administration.

Swedish supermarket owner Johannes Cullberg started an international boycott in response to Brazil’s approval and use of hazardous pesticides in food production. #BoycottBrazilianFood began in June of 2019 when the total of newly registered pesticides stood at 197. Mr. Cullburg stated, “We need to stop (the president) Bolsonaro, he’s a maniac.” The boycott prompted a response from the Brazilian embassy, stating, “[T]he Embassy wishes to inform you that Brazil, despite being an agricultural powerhouse, is not the biggest user of pesticides. It is ranked 5th or 7th in the world, according to applicable parameters in pesticide studies,” and so on.

Mr. Cullberg responded, “I salute you for that fifth-runner up position in 2017, but it seems you might actually win in 2019. With that said, let me yet again explain why I do think that a boycott of Brazilian products is still necessary. You argue that your tropical climate craves a massive use of pesticides. According to the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, Brazil in 2016 alone registered 4,208 cases of intoxication by exposure to pesticides and 355 deaths by agricultural chemicals. I argue that these numbers are far from acceptable to me and should not be to anyone.”

Bolsonaro is unlikely to be moved by pleas regarding human or environmental rights. His campaign last year ran on a platform that touted protected lands as an obstacle to economic growth, and committed to removing barriers to commercial exploitation. This has led to more than 1,330 square miles of forest cover loss since Bolsonaro took office in January. Local mining groups are clashing with indigenous tribes for land, and because enforcement agencies have been crippled by budget cuts there is little capability to mitigate the problem. Ewerton Marubo, an indigenous activist, stated bluntly, “Just imagine if all this is destroyed, if the government opens this area up. In two years it will all be gone. The wood will be gone. The fish will be gone. The rivers will all be polluted. All they want is to destroy.”

There are distinct parallels between the Trump Administration and Bolsonaro’s reign in Brazil— namely, the gutting of environmental protection in favor of corporate gain. Now, more than ever, it is necessary for local groups to stand up and fight back at the local level. Use Beyond Pesticides’ Tools For Change to learn more. You can easily join the boycott against Bolsonaro by buying local, organic food.

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

Sources: Reuters, The Rio Times, Medium, Human Rights Watch

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2019) When it comes to maintaining a healthy gut, organic apples shine, while conventional, pesticide-treated apples come out bruised and wanting, according to a new study published in Frontiers in Microbiology by a team of Austrian researchers. The study is the latest to compare the potential health benefits between foods grown with either organic or chemical-intensive farming practices. As with past analyses on milk, meat, strawberries, tomatoes, and a range of other foods, organic practices were found to produce the healthiest options.

“Freshly harvested, organically managed apples harbor a significantly more diverse, more even and distinct bacterial community, compared to conventional ones,” said Gabriele Berg, PhD to the Guardian.

Scientists reached this conclusion by analyzing the entire apple microbiome, from the peel and fruit pulp, to the seeds, stem and calyx (opposite from the stem, where the apple flower fell off).  Organic and chemically produced apples were weighed and divided, and ran through a series of tests to determine the number of microbiota as well as the diversity therein.

Both conventional and organic apples contained roughly the same number of total bacterium, at roughly 100 million. Interestingly, the bulk of microbes were found not in the skin or fruit of the apple, but the stem, seeds, and calyx. In other words, if you want to gain all the microbial benefits an apple has, do not compost your apple cores, and instead eat them whole.

The two types of apples diverged in regards to diversity and colonization patterns of the microbial community. Every area, from peel to core, of an organic apple contained greater bacterial diversity than its conventional counterpart. Moreover, the distribution of these microbes were also more even throughout organic apples than conventional apples. Organic apples were dominated by Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium, genera well known by researchers to beneficial to the human gut, and often contained within commercially available probiotic supplements. They also contained significantly higher levels of Methylobacterium, which is known to enhance the flavor of certain fruits.

Conventional apples, while containing the same number of bacterium, were dominated by Burkholderiales, of which some may be pathogenic to humans. They also contained Enterobacteriales, including some, (albeit low) amount of human pathogenic Escherichia-Shigella, which was not found in any organic apple sample. And growing practices for chemical-intensive apple production may be harming the ability of the apple tree itself to thrive, as researchers found higher numbers of Ralstonia and Erwinia bacterium, known for their ability to harm plant health.

“Organic apples conceivably feature favorable health effects for the consumer, the host plant and the environment in contrast to conventional apples, which were found to harbor potential food-borne pathogens,” researchers wrote in the study.

Food is essential to life, and in so many realms, organic agriculture is the best path to balance the need for human consumption to work with, rather than against, nature. When compared to chemical-intensive agriculture, this study reveals that the food grown in organic soil is better for our microbiome. All-together, switching from a conventional to organic diet has concrete impacts on health, reducing the level of pesticides in the body, and lowering cancer risk. It also has economic benefits, boosting local economies where there is a high level of organic agriculture, as well as farmers’ bottom lines. A broad scale transition to organic is also critical to address mounting crises in the environment, including the pollinator and insect apocalypse.

It is no wonder that American consumers are increasingly seeking out organic foods. As more and more studies discover the benefits many have already realized for their own health, wallet, or local environment. Read more about how to protect, strengthen and grow organic agriculture on Beyond Pesticides “Why Organic?” webpage.

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

Source: The Guardian, Frontiers in Microbiology (peer-reviewed journal)

With attention on the connection between pesticide use and agricaultural growing practices

An

When it comes to maintaining a healthy gut, organic apples shine

A new study is clarifying age-old advice about keeping the doctor away.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 30, 2019) Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a decision to register new uses for the bee-toxic pesticide sulfoxaflor. The decision closely followed a USDA announcement halting the Honey Bee Colonies Survey, combining blows to already suffering beekeepers. According to the nonprofit Bee Informed, this past winter tallied the most colonies lost in a decade—an estimated 37% between October 1, 2018 and April 1, 2019.

“Proposing to register sulfoxaflor for use on bee-attractive crops, in the midst of an ongoing pollinator crisis, is the height of irresponsibility,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director for Beyond Pesticides in an interview for Bloomberg Environment. “When all of the available data points to significant risks to pollinators from use of this chemical we must face the facts: EPA is working towards the protection of pesticide industry, not the environment,” he said.

Sulfoxaflor is a systemic insecticide whose mode of action is the same as neonicotinoid pesticides. After application, the chemical is absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen and nectar. These insecticides are selective agonists of insects’ nicotinic acetylcholine receptors—they bind to the receptor and cause it to activate. The impact on foraging bees is generally sublethal but devastating on a population level.

A 2018 study published in Nature, “Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces bumblebee reproductive success,” stated, “There is an urgent need to pre-emptively evaluate the potential sub-lethal effects of sulfoximine-based pesticides [i.e. sulfoxaflor] on pollinators, because such effects are rarely detected by standard ecotoxicological assessments, but can have major impacts at larger ecological scales.”

A 2015 lawsuit headed by beekeepers resulted in a 2016 registration that specifically excluded bee-attractive crops such as cotton and sorghum. However, EPA regularly utilized the “emergency exemption” rule under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to circumvent restrictions, criticized by environmental advocates.

EPA claims, based on mostly industry-financed studies, that sulfoxaflor presents a lower risk for non-target wildlife than alternatives, and that it “disappears” from the environment faster than alternatives such as organophosphates. It is worth noting that this lesser-of-two-evils logic is a false dichotomy, and chemicals may not disappear but rather break down into metabolites that can be more toxic than the predecessor. EPA’s own assessment names that sulfoxaflor as “highly toxic” to honey bees.

A European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) peer review of pesticide risk assessment for sulfoxaflor, approved February 2019, found a high risk for honey bees and bumblebees in field applications. France disallowed the use of sulfoxaflor in 2017 based on the precautionary principle, a practice that suggests a social responsibility to use discretion when scientific investigation indicates a possibility of harm or for which their is uncertainty. The U.S. administration, in juxtaposition, is turning a blind eye to the potential damage that this and other chemicals cause to pollinators, according to advocates.

As stated in Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of USDA’s honey bee data collection shutdown, “Permitting [sulfoxaflor’s] use and then ceasing to collect and report data on the status of honey bees that are likely to be impacted is not only a recipe for kneecapping the study of bee decline and imperiling the food supply, but also, another example of the corruption for which this administration is infamous.”

Current law allows chemical lobbyists to unduly influence EPA decisions, causing a bias in favor of pesticide dependency instead of incentivizing alternatives like organic practices and products. The Saving America’s Pollinators Act (H.R.1337) will cancel specific bee-toxic pesticides and reshape the EPA process for permitting pesticides. Ask your elected U.S. Representative in Congress to support pollinators by cosponsoring Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA). If they are already a cosponsor, use the occasion to thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

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

Source: Bloomberg

(Beyond Pesticides, July 29, 2019) A research study, published in March in Scientific Reports, uncovers a pesticide effect on a sugar-metabolizing enzyme common to all cells that has broad health ramifications ignored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) safety testing protocol. This finding raises a larger question regarding the need for EPA to test for the synergistic effects of pesticides, whereby pesticides and chemicals in combination have an even greater effect than they do by themselves.

The research, by T. Tristan Brandhorst, PhD, Iain Kean, PhD, and others in the lab of Bruce Klein, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison and UW School ofMedicine and Public Health, specifically sheds light on the mode of action of the fungicide fludioxonil. Fludioxonil, a phenylpyrrole fungicide, was developed to treat seeds during storage, and has come to be used commonly on grains, vegetables, fruits, and ornamental plants during cultivation, and produce after harvest to extend “shelf life.” As reported by the American Association for the Advancement of Science publication, EurekAlert, “The ability of [the fungicide] fludioxonil to act on a sugar-metabolizing enzyme common to all cells, and to produce the damaging compound methylglyoxal, may mean that the pesticide has more potential to harm non-fungal cells than previously thought. Although fludioxonil has been deemed safe for use, the authors . . . suggest that the effects of this widely used pesticide has upon animals be re-examined.”

EPA, under the current administration, has not shown a willingness to restrict pesticide use to protect humans and the environment. However, EPA has an investigative office—the Office of Inspector General (OIG)—whose job is to “perform audits and investigations of the EPA to promote economy and efficiency, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse.” In order to ensure its independence of EPA, OIG receives funding directly from Congress. Congress may request audits and investigations by OIG.

Ask your U.S. Representative and Senators to request an Office of Inspector General investigation of EPA’s failure to assess pesticide hazards resulting from chemicals in combination having synergistic and multifactorial effects.

In a previous investigation, Drs. Brandhorst and Klein pointed to the uncertainty about the mechanism by which fludioxonil actually causes fungi cell death, asserting that this uncertainty merits a reevaluation by EPA of its potential impacts on human health—noting reports of the fungicide’s ability to disrupt hepatic, endocrine, and neurological systems. The scientists in Dr. Klein’s lab found that a common effect of pesticides on their targets, oxidative stress, is crucial. In this case, the oxidative stress that triggers the toxicity of fludioxonil comes from the natural breakdown of sugars, which is enhanced by the fungicide. Dr. Brandhorst notes, “The take-home lesson is that fludioxonil is multifactorial. It’s not compromising cells by one solitary mechanism. It has potential to damage cells in a variety of ways.” The enzyme-suppressing action of fludioxonil on an enzyme common to all cells is at the heart of the alarm this research raises, but it is not the only reason the fungicide needs to be reevaluated.

The fungicide’s extensive post-harvest use on food crops is of particular concern because it eliminates the chance for environmental degradation of the compound, and once applied, the waxy fungicide is not easily removed by rinsing. Further, UV treatment of produce (sometimes used to reduce pathogens on fresh fruits and vegetables) actually significantly increases the toxicity of fludioxonil. In addition, the lead author indicates that “there is also reason to believe that breakdown products of this pesticide may be 100 times more toxic than fludioxonil itself.”

There are several lessons from this research. First, life is complex, and synergism is the rule, not the exception. Note that in this case, synergism occurs between the pesticide and naturally-occurring processes in humans and other organisms.

Second, EPA should not regulate pesticides with the assumption that the absence of an enzyme in one group of organisms protects the overall health of all other organisms. EPA made a similar mistaken assumption in assessing glyphosate/Roundup, which caused it to ignore the impacts of that herbicide on the human gut microbiota.

Third, EPA must have a complete understanding of the mode of action of any pesticide it registers and act on new information that arises in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It is a major shortcoming of EPA’s risk assessment process that it does not respond to current science.

Ask your U.S. Representative and Senators to request an Office of Inspector General investigation of EPA’s failure to assess pesticide hazards resulting from chemicals in combination having synergistic and multifactorial effects.

Letter to Congress

I am writing to ask you to request an investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General of a failing in EPA’s risk assessment of pesticides.

A research study, published in March in Scientific Reports, uncovers a pesticide effect on a sugar-metabolizing enzyme common to all cells that has broad health ramifications ignored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) safety testing protocol. This finding raises a larger question regarding the need for EPA to test for the synergistic effects of pesticides, whereby pesticides and chemicals in combination have an even greater effect than they do by themselves. (Brandhorst, T.T., Kean, I.R., Lawry, S.M., Wiesner, D.L. and Klein, B.S., 2019. Phenylpyrrole fungicides act on triosephosphate isomerase to induce methylglyoxal stress and alter hybrid histidine kinase activity. (Scientific Reports, 9(1), p.5047)

The study specifically sheds light on the mode of action of the fungicide fludioxonil, which was developed to treat seeds during storage, and is now used on grains, vegetables, fruits, and ornamental plants during cultivation, and produce after harvest. As reported in EurekAlert, “The ability of [the fungicide] fludioxonil to act on a sugar-metabolizing enzyme common to all cells, and to produce the damaging compound methylglyoxal, may mean that the pesticide has more potential to harm non-fungal cells than previously thought. Although fludioxonil has been deemed safe for use, the authors . . . suggest that the effects of this widely used pesticide has upon animals be re-examined.”

EPA, under this administration, has not shown a willingness to restrict pesticide use to protect humans and the environment. This makes a request on this matter to the OIG especially important now.

Previous work by Drs. Brandhorst and Klein pointed to the uncertainty about the mechanism by which fludioxonil actually causes fungi cell death, asserting that this uncertainty merits a reevaluation by EPA of its potential impacts on human health—noting reports of the fungicide’s ability to disrupt hepatic, endocrine, and neurological systems. They found that a common effect of pesticides on their targets, oxidative stress, is crucial. In this case, the oxidative stress that triggers the toxicity of fludioxonil comes from the natural breakdown of sugars, which is enhanced by the fungicide. The enzyme-suppressing action of fludioxonil on an enzyme common to all cells is at the heart of the alarm raised by this research.

The fungicide’s extensive post-harvest use on food crops is of particular concern because it eliminates the chance for environmental degradation of the compound, and once applied, the waxy fungicide is not easily removed by rinsing. Further, UV treatment of produce (sometimes used to reduce pathogens on fresh fruits and vegetables) significantly increases the toxicity of fludioxonil. In addition, “there is also reason to believe that breakdown products of this pesticide may be 100 times more toxic than fludioxonil itself.”

There are several lessons from this research. First, life is complex, and synergism is the rule, not the exception. In this case, synergism occurs between the pesticide and natural processes in humans and other organisms.

Second, EPA should not regulate pesticides with the assumption that the absence of an enzyme in one group of organisms protects the overall health of all other organisms. EPA made a similar mistaken assumption in assessing glyphosate/Roundup, which caused it to ignore the impacts of that herbicide on the human gut microbiota.

Third, EPA must have a complete understanding of the mode of action of any pesticide it registers and act on new information that arises in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The failure to respond to current science is a major shortcoming of EPA’s risk assessment process.

Please ask the OIG to investigate EPA’s risk assessment practices highlighted by this research.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 26, 2019) The botanic denizens of wild and unmanaged lands typically comprise many different plant species. This is because nature abhors monocultures — the existence of a single kind of plant growing across some amount of territory. Yet, this is the dominant practice in modern agriculture, and brings with it a plethora of problems. One of them, emerging from an Argentinian study out of the Universidad Nacional del Comahue and published in Global Change Biology, is that agricultural production in some areas of the world is at risk because of this obeisance to monoculture in a time of biodiversity loss and pollinator decline.

Monocultural agriculture, for all its perceived advantages — in yield, routinization of management practices, ease of harvesting, and others related to technological tools — also involves significant downsides, including:

• robbing local ecosystems of natural systems of checks and balances, thus making monocrops more vulnerable to pests and diseases — which in turn usually means greater applications of toxic pesticides
• nutritional impoverishment of soil by reducing available nutrients, thereby inviting addition of synthetic, usually fossil fuel–based fertilizers and other inputs
• degradation of soils so that they retain moisture far less well and cause increased runoff of those chemical inputs, potentially contributing to algal blooms and anaerobic “dead zones” in nearby water bodies
• increased topsoil erosion
• plants’ increased development of resistance to pesticides, fueling the cycle of resistance, creation of new chemical treatments, which then generate more resistance, etc.

Human dependence on pollinators for one-third of foodstuffs is at the center of the Argentinian study’s concern, given the decline in pollinator, and especially both domestic and wild bee, populations. The trend in some regions to plant more pollinator-dependent crops without also increasing crop diversity is leading to greater demand for pollination services — which this study indicates is increasingly likely to be met by a shortfall of available pollinators. Increasing demand on these insects to pollinate crops — in the context of the larger “insect apocalypse” at hand — means a smaller proportion of such plants are pollinated. Therein lies the risk to production capacity.

In order to examine how agricultural expansion, diversity, and dependence on pollinators have interacted around the world in recent decades, the research team analyzed crop data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. During the 55 years prior to 2016, the researchers found that, worldwide, the aggregate land area cultivated with crops not dependent on pollinators increased by 17.3%, whereas the amount cultivated with pollinator‐dependent crops grew by 136.9%. The authors surmise that “the pollinator dependence of global agriculture, in terms of the proportion of area cultivated with pollinator‐dependent crops, increased by approximately 70%,” while crop diversity increased by only 20.5%.

The study reveals great variation in these dynamics, however, depending on region. For example, despite plenty of agricultural expansion on the African continent, there has been little rise in pollinator dependence because much of that expansion has been in non-pollinator-dependent crops. In Europe, such dependence has increased even in the face of decreasing amounts of land in cultivation because of intensification of pollinator-dependent crops.

Agricultural production is particularly at risk in regions of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia, due largely to increases in soybean cultivation. “Soy production has risen by around 30 percent per decade globally. This is problematic because numerous natural and semi-natural habitats, including tropical and subtropical forests and meadows, have been destroyed for soy fields,” says the study’s lead researcher, Marcelo Aizen, PhD. Some Asian countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia face similar challenges because of growth in demand for the production of palm oil.

Habitat loss — largely due to human development activities, including agricultural expansion — is another chief contributor to significant declines in insect, including pollinator, populations. Particularly in subtropical and tropical areas, the clearing of forests for agricultural expansion is a huge concern; those parcels are often cleared in order to be planted with monocrops that promise high market return on investment. Commonly, soybean, nut, oilseed (such as rapeseed for canola oil and oil palm), and fruits crops are planted, and these require pollinators to produce the useful parts of the plant (technically, the fruit and seeds). The use of toxic pesticides plays a major role in pollinator decline; as Beyond Pesticides has covered comprehensively, pesticides present very significant threats to pollinators, and to human and environmental health, never mind the costs associated with the outcomes. As Environmental Health News notes, “A Cornell study found that pesticide use in the United States causes $520 million in crop loss and $1.1 billion in health costs.”

Although the global insect decline is caused primarily by pesticide use, habitat destruction, and climate change, monocropping represents an additional catalyst to this collapse. According to the study authors, shifts to more pollinator-dependent cropping, absent sufficient pollinator populations, can actually contribute to pollinator decline via pesticide use and natural habitat loss. “Farmers are growing more crops that require pollination, such as fruits, nuts and oilseeds, because there is an increasing demand for them and they have a higher market value. This study points out that these current trends are not great for pollinators,” said David Inouye, PhD, coauthor and professor emeritus of biology at the University of Maryland. As Beyond Pesticides has reported, shifting from monocropping to regenerative, organic, and sustainable practices can support, rather than destroy, biodiversity and pollinator population success.

The project team posits that the mismatch between increasing demand for pollinators and the lack of a commensurate increase in the diversity of what is being cultivated is concerning because of the social, economic, and environmental consequences that may ensue. The study authors say that further useful work might identify regions that are particularly vulnerable because steep increases in their pollinator dependence are taking a high environmental toll that is not offset by economic and other benefits.

The researchers emphasize that their study results represent an “alarm call for the implementation of more pollinator‐friendly, synergistic management, including targeted use of insecticides, the setting aside of marginal land to establish and maintain flower strips and hedgerows, and the restoration of semi-natural and natural areas adjacent to crops. Such changes, in addition to increasing crop diversity at different spatial scales, will increase farmland heterogeneity, fostering pollination services and thus agricultural productivity and sustainability.”

Beyond Pesticides lends its voice to the call for a shift in the destructive and antiquated agricultural system that continues to prevail in the U.S. — the huge growth in organic agriculture aside. Organic and regenerative practices help make their local ecosystems far more resilient to the threats of a warming planet and its more-extreme weather: healthy soil and cover crops, for example, help prevent nutrient and water loss, making land more able to withstand floods and droughts. As reported by The Rodale Institute, during droughts, organic parcels generate yields up to 40% greater than those of traditional, chemically fertilized plots treated with pesticides. In addition, organic practices — by forgoing the use of pesticides — support pollinators and eliminate much of the toxic burden to which they’re exposed in agricultural areas.

Everyone has a role to play in leveraging the shift away from our toxic “business as usual” approaches and toward a genuinely sustainability agroeconomy. As set out in the June 18, 2019 Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog entry, “through public pressure and consumer choice, we can shift towards alternative products and practices, improve biodiversity, and begin to repair the damage done by industrial agriculture.”

Track pollinator, biodiversity, and organic agriculture developments with Beyond Pesticides’ multiplicity of tools, including its Daily News Blog and the journal Pesticides and You. Support its work by becoming a member and/or signing up to learn about actions to take in support of its mission.

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

Sources: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14736 and

https://www.ehn.org/monoculture-farming-is-not-good-for-the-bees-study-2639154525.html