(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will permit the continued use of a known neurotoxic insecticide on the food the Americans eat, the agency announced yesterday in response to a lawsuit filed by public health groups. Health advocates say the move to continue chlorpyrifos use is the latest example of the agency working to protect the profits of industry over the health of Americans.

“By allowing chlorpyrifos to stay in our fruits and vegetables, Trump’s EPA is breaking the law and neglecting the overwhelming scientific evidence that this pesticide harms children’s brains,” said Patti Goldman, an attorney for Earthjustice. “It is a tragedy that this administration sides with corporations instead of children’s health.”

Under a lawsuit filed in the 9^th Circuit US Court of Appeals, EPA had 90 days to provide a justification for why the pesticide should remain on the market. EPA denied the petition yesterday, and rather than providing positive justification for continued use of the chemical, attacked the sound science claimants urged the agency to consider as “not…valid, complete, and reliable.”

In the absence of EPA action, several states are leading in the protection of their residents by rejecting the agency’s determination regarding the safety of chlorpyrifos, and banning its use. Two years ago, Hawaii became the first state to take action through a phase-out that completely eliminates all use of the chemical by 2022. Legislation passed in New York earlier this year would leapfrog Hawaii’s phase out period, halting all use of the chemical by December 2021 (Residents of New York are encouraged to contact Governor Cuomo’s office and urge him to sign the ban bill that has been sitting on his desk).

In California, a state with heavy chlorpyrifos use, regulators became the first to eliminate use of the chemical through the rulemaking process, as state lawmakers have so far failed to enact restrictions.

“Every day we go without a ban, children and farmworkers are eating, drinking and breathing a pesticide linked to intellectual and learning disabilities and poisonings,” said the 12 plaintiff organizations challenging the 2017 decision. “We will continue to fight until chlorpyrifos is banned and children and farmworkers are safe from this dangerous chemical.”

Chlorpyrifos damages fetal brains and produces cognitive and behavioral dysfunctions, particularly in children. Prenatal and early life exposure to chlorpyrifos is linked to lower birth weight and neurodevelopmental harms, including reduced IQ, loss of working memory, attention disorders, and delayed motor development. Farmworkers are at heightened risk of acute exposure effects of the chemical (including accidents and spills), which can cause respiratory paralysis and even death.

While EPA determined nearly 20 years ago that the chemical should not be used in residential areas, it maintained uses on food crops, where even low levels of residues on food can end up harming children’s health. For a timeline on the history of chlorpyrifos regulation, see this previous Daily News article.

As EPA’s inaction on the chemical reveals, people in the U.S. cannot continue to rely on an agency whose Administrator holds secret meetings with pesticide registrants like Dow Chemical and, as a result, makes determinations that are not protective of children’s health. Work to ban chlorpyrifos and other neurotoxic insecticides by contacting your state’s Governor and urging them to follow the lead of Hawaii, New York, and California.  To fight chlorpyrifos use every day, help support an agricultural system that does not rely on the chemical or any other highly toxic WW2-era organophosphate pesticides by buying organic whenever possible.

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

Source: EPA release, EarthJustice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2019) A high-level, nongovernmental commission in the United Kingdom (UK) — the RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) Food, Farming and Countryside Commission — has just released an important report: Our Future in the Land. As reported by The Guardian, “The true cost of cheap, unhealthy food is a spiralling public health crisis and environmental destruction.” The commission’s report calls for radical transformation of the UK food and agricultural system, by 2030, to sustainable, agroecological farming, and establishes steps to launch the process.

A notable one of those steps is the creation of a nonprofit National Agroecology Development Bank to hasten and enable a fair and sustainable transition of a complex system. The commission also published a Field Guide to the Future, which it describes as a “practical guide, with interviews and stories from the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission’s work across the UK, [including] case studies of good practice and stories of change [that] hint at a better future.”

Our Future in the Land declares, “Our future depends on the land. The land nourishes and supports us. It provides for our nutrition, our health and our wellbeing. Food and farming depend critically on the fate of the countryside. Those who live and work here are the stewards of this relationship but the responsibility for it rests with us all. Our own health and the health of the land are inextricably intertwined. In the last 70 years, this relationship has been broken. Driven by poor policy and perverse incentives, the food and farming system has become one of the main drivers of human and ecosystem crisis. From deforestation, loss of wildlife and soil degradation, to widespread pollution and spiralling diet-related ill-health, people and planet have suffered alike. Far from being the sector that nourishes us, and the land on which we all depend, the system has damaged and depleted our precious and finite resources.”

The 80-plus page report is chock full of context, analysis, and ideas for ways forward. An RSA website page offers a top-level look at the report’s major recommendations, and introduces them with this: “The actions we take in the next ten years, to stop ecosystems collapse, to recover and regenerate nature and to restore people’s health and wellbeing are now critical. In this final report, the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission sets out radical and practical ways for policymakers, business and communities to respond to the challenges.” The report identifies 15 different recommendations across three concept areas:

• Healthy food is everybody’s business.

Levelling the playing field for a fair food system: good food must become good business; committing to grow the UK supply of fruit, vegetables, nuts, and pulses, and products from UK sustainable agriculture, and to using them more in everyday foods; implementing world-leading public procurement, using this powerful tool to transform the market; establishing collaborative community food plans to help inform and implement national food strategies and meet the different needs of communities around the UK; reconnecting people and nature to boost health and wellbeing.

•  Farming is a force for change, unleashing a fourth agricultural revolution driven by public values.

Designing a 10-year transition plan to achieve sustainable, agroecological farming by 2030; backing innovation by farmers to unleash a fourth agricultural revolution; making sure every farmer can get trusted, independent advice by training a cadre of peer mentors and a farmer support network; boosting cooperation and collaboration by extending support for producer organizations to all sectors; establishing a National Agroecology Development Bank to accelerate a fair and sustainable transition.

•  A countryside that works for all, and rural communities are a powerhouse for a fair and green economy.

Establishing a national land-use framework in England inspires cooperation based on the public value of land, mediating and encouraging multipurpose uses; investing in the skills and rural infrastructure to underpin the rural economy; creating more good work in the regenerative economy; developing sustainable solutions to meet rural housing need; establishing a National Nature Service that employs the energy of young people to kickstart the regenerative economy.

The report involved leaders from the agriculture, health, governance, and food system–business sectors. The commission concluded that most UK farmers believe that they could achieve transformative changes in their practices if they received sufficient financial and technical support. Organic Wales farmer and director of the RSA commission, Sue Pritchard, commented, “Farmers are extraordinarily adaptable. We have to live with change every single day of our lives. . . . We [on the commission] are really keen that farmers feel they are in the driving seat and that they can be a force of change. At the moment, a lot of farmers feel beleaguered and that they have become the bad guys. But without sustainable, secure and safe farming in the UK, we will not survive.” UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove welcomed the report, and said, “This report raises issues that are hugely important. We know that it is in the interests of farmers and landowners to move to a more sustainable model.”

The RSA Food, Farming & Countryside Commission called out many years of government policy — which has influenced the food system to generate cheap, processed food — as bearing responsibility for growing rates of obesity, diabetes, and other health issues, and degraded environment, atmosphere, and biodiversity. Ms. Pritchard notes that the UK has the third cheapest food prices among “developed” countries and the highest European rate of “food poverty” — the ability of people to afford a healthful diet. She also noted that Type 2 diabetes costs the UK £27 billion a year; agriculture generates more than 10% of the UK’s greenhouse gases; and farming is the largest destroyer of wildlife, with populations of key species having plummeted by 67% since 1970, and 13% of species now nearing extinction.

To solve these crises, the report says, “agroecology” practices must be supported. The RSA report defines the term this way: “Agroecology means farming in ways that learn from, work with and enhance natural systems. Integrated pest management, organic farming, conservation and regenerative agriculture, and agroforestry are all examples.” The commission says, in its report, that it has “followed the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN’s definition of agroecology as ‘an integrated approach that applies ecological and social principles to the design and management of food and agricultural systems. It seeks to optimise the interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment and the social aspects that need to be addressed for a sustainable and fair food system.’ It applies the principles of the regenerative economy to agriculture.”

Here in the U.S., people are likely more familiar with the terms and concepts of organic and regenerative farming than with “agroecology.” There is significant overlap among all three, with each term centering a somewhat different emphasis. Regenerative agriculture, according to Regeneration International, “not only ‘does no harm’ to the land but actually improves it, using technologies that regenerate and revitalize the soil and the environment. Regenerative agriculture leads to healthy soil, capable of producing high quality, nutrient dense food while simultaneously improving, rather than degrading land, and ultimately leading to productive farms and healthy communities and economies.” Organic is the only comprehensive food production category that has a legal standard and a label.

The use of pesticides has demonstrably harmful effects on human health, biodiversity, and the functioning of natural ecological systems, as Beyond Pesticides has chronicled for decades. Among the steps the RSA report sets out is creation of a timetable for more-stringent control of the use of pesticides, “anticipating that the scientific case for this will continue to grow.” The report adds, “The pesticide registration process needs re-evaluation, as too many are approved which, years later, are shown to be harmful. This should include the ‘chemical cocktail’ effect. Much more stringent regulation is needed of spraying near water courses and residential areas, and prophylactic use of antibiotics.”

As Beyond Pesticides has long promoted, organic practices, which are codified in the federal National Organic Standards (NOS), comprise a big part of the ultimate solution to the problems this UK report addresses. Organic eschews the use of toxic, synthetic pesticides and soil inputs (e.g., fertilizers), and endorses practices that improve soil health and biodiversity, and generally depend on mechanical and some biological controls for pest problems, rather than on toxic chemicals. Organic practices may include conservation tillage, cover cropping, composting, and crop rotation, among other techniques — all with the aims of increasing production of healthful food, feeding and improving the soil, and making farming economically viable. Keep abreast of developments in organic, regenerative, and agroecological approaches to health and environment through Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog and its journal, Pesticides and You.

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

Sources: https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/projects/psc/ffcc/reports-2/1.-our-future-in-the-land_executive-summary_july19.pdf and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/16/true-cost-of-cheap-food-is-health-and-climate-crises-says-commission

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2019) Pesticide products containing the weed killer dicamba become more volatile and drift-prone in hot conditions and when tank-mixed with glyphosate, according to a recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Tennessee. The findings help explain rampant complaints from farmers in the South and Midwest experiencing crop loss and economic hardship as a result of drift from new dicamba products, which are formulated with glyphosate for use on genetically engineered (GE) cotton and soy. While states have taken the lead in regulating the use of GE dicamba products, top political officials within Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s EPA overruled the findings from agency scientists urging larger buffer zones to protect neighboring crops and farm fields.

During a 60-hour window, scientists applied various GE dicamba products (Clarity and XtendiMax) over a range of temperatures and took air samples. As temperatures increased, so did the volatilization and drift of dicamba, even in formulations touted as “low volatility.”

Adding glyphosate to the mixture produced stark results, increasing concentrations of dicamba in the air up to nine times compared to dicamba alone. Tom Mueller, PhD, a professor in the UT Department of Plant Sciences, stated in a press release that glyphosate as “a contributor to dicamba volatility is not as widely accepted, but our data shows the addition of glyphosate to a dicamba spray solution increased dicamba detection in the atmosphere which would point to increased volatilization.” Dr. Mueller and his colleagues hypothesize that this increase in volatility is due to the fact that glyphosate lowers the pH of the tank mix, raising the quantity of dicamba in acid form, which is already known to boost volatility.

Dicamba is an herbicide that acts like natural plant hormones called auxins. Auxins help to control plant growth and, when dicamba is applied, the plants experience uncontrolled and abnormal growth resulting in death. Glyphosate on the other hand works by inhibiting the shikimic acid pathway (and enzyme pathway), preventing protein creation. Dicamba use is increasing due to the failure of glyphosate-tolerant GE crops, which have resulted in the widespread proliferation of glyphosate tolerant-weeds. While the major manufacture of glyphosate+dicamba pesticides, Bayer Monsanto, claims new formulas have lower volatility, millions of acres of susceptible crops, trees, and ornamental plants have been damaged in the last few years, and research finds that even trace amounts of dicamba in the air, levels in the parts per million, can damage non-resistant crops.

Mixing these two herbicides has become a popular practice in an attempt to manage weeds resistant to glyphosate, a result of repeated spraying of fGE crop fields. However, exposure to either herbicide poses a health risk and both have been linked to diseases such as cancer. These herbicides also pose a threat to pollinators, especially when drift occurs. Increasing the volatility of dicamba with the addition of summer heat and glyphosate will only increase the spread of the herbicide, resulting in more crop damage, pollinator deaths, and human health concerns. While risks to public health and the environment increase, these new formulations are certain to fail as weeds will, as they have in the past, adapt.

Since 2016, numerous lawsuits have been brought regarding dicamba, several over the issue of damage from drift. As a result, some states, such Arkansas and Missouri, have attempted to enact cutoff dates for use to avoid extreme volatility in summer heat. However, many states still lack policies, and those that are in place do not completely prevent the damage caused by drift.

Given the volatility of dicamba alone, and the increased drift when mixed with glyphosate and when exposed to heat, it is evident that more regulation is needed. Current policies in place must be reevaluated, and policies that regulate mixing of these chemicals must be put in place to ensure clean air and reduce crop loss. As opposed to the nefarious actions undertaken by political appointees under Wheeler’s EPA to undermine science and reasonable protections from these toxic pesticides, the agency must begin following the precautionary principle, taking measures to assess for harm before approval. Beyond Pesticides encourages farmers wishing to jump off the pesticide treadmill to adopt organic approaches that do not perpetuate a cycle of pesticide resistance, eliminating the need for these harmful chemicals, mixes of them, and risk of drift. Those impacted by pesticide drift can refer to Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on What to Do in a Pesticide Emergency, and contact the organization for additional information.

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

Source: Science Daily, Weed Technology (peer reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2019) A March 2017 bird kill incident in Modesto, CA can be traced directly back to an insecticide “soil drench” applied to the base of several elm trees by pesticide applicators hired by the city, as detailed in a study published last month in the Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. The chemical in question, the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, is implicated in the ongoing pollinator crisis and insect apocalypse, but can also affect bird populations. Prior research estimated that a single seed coated with the insecticide is enough to kill a songbird; this study confirms that such a scenario can and does play out in the real world. Progress and improvement will only occur when pest management practices stop focusing on pesticide use to solve routine pest problems and emphasize prevention.

As part of city-wide pest management activities, Modesto officials said that imidacloprid was applied to elm trees in several front yards in a local neighborhood. The application took the form of a “soil drench,” which is when pesticide products are applied to the soil around the base of a tree or shrub. The systemic property of imidacloprid and other systemic insecticides means that the chemical will move through the soil, be taken up by the roots and translocated into the rest of the the plant.

While that mechanism poses significant risks to bees and a range of insect pollinators that feed on pollen, nectar, and dew drops contaminated by the systemic insecticide, it is the drench itself that led to the death of over two dozen goldfinches in Modesto. Researchers determined that elm seeds that had fallen from the tree prior to the application were contaminated with imidacloprid during the soil drench. Goldfinches that ate the seeds experienced acute poisoning and sudden death, some falling from their perch to crashing to the ground after attempting to fly.

“The mortality event investigated in the present study highlights a previously unidentified risk of drench application for imidacloprid,” said study co-author Krysta Rogers, Wildlife Investigation Laboratory Investigator, in a news release. “The pesticide label states that the product be applied to the base of the tree and directly to the root zone. [However] Seeds, insects, or other invertebrates consumed by birds and other animals may be present within that zone. If these food items were contaminated during the drench application, they would be highly toxic to animals when ingested.”

Researchers autopsied the birds, finding elm seeds and detectable levels of imidacloprid in the gizzard contents (between 2.2-8.5 ppm) and liver tissue (between 2.1-4.8 ppm) of the affected goldfinches, consistent with the presence of imidacloprid on elm seeds found around soil drenched trees.

The City of Modesto indicates that applicators followed the label correctly. Consequently, this incident points to a serious, but not unexpected, shortfall in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of toxic pesticides. EPA aims to avert risks from inherently hazardous substances through the proper application of these hazardous substances. However, as Beyond Pesticides has long pointed out, regulating pesticides primarily through label statements is inherently flawed, given the complexity of real world scenarios that can occur and result in harm to wildlife and human health.

Researchers intimate that it is possible that such poisonings may be widespread, but “may not be on the list of differential diagnoses unless it is known that a pesticide application took place.” While it is typical to find birds with seeds in their digestive tracks, researchers would not consider testing them for poisoning without prior knowledge of pesticide use in an area.

The study concludes by urging pest managers to look towards integrated approaches that discourage “the prophylactic use of pesticides” that resulted in the death of the goldfinches in Modesto. Pesticide use should never be the first tool land managers use in their toolbox. All other options, including cultural, mechanical, biological, and habitat manipulation, should be attempted before considering even less toxic pesticidal products. For more information on healthy tree care, see Beyond Pesticides’ “Mail” section from its spring 2018 newsletter, and for issues with tree pests, see the ManageSafe webpage.

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

Source: UPI,  Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2019) USDA’s proposed new rules on genetically engineered (GE) crops exempt almost all GE crops from regulation and allow the company that makes them to decide whether they are safe. The rules proposed by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) benefit companies like Monsanto/Bayer and Dow, but fail to protect farmers, consumers, and the environment. Please tell APHIS to abandon its proposal and support a regulatory system that is consistent with modern science.

Tell USDA not to allow companies to approve their own GE crops.

The rules would govern USDA’s role in the outdated and fatally flawed “Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.” The Framework fails to account for the unique risks of genetic engineering, using existing laws like the Plant Protection Act to address issues for which they were not designed. This proposal weakens the APHIS regulations even more.

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).

In particular, APHIS regulations should:

• Base the regulation of GE organisms on the unique hazards they present;
• Include “synthetic biology” in the definition of regulated genetic engineering;
• Prohibit developers from exempting themselves from regulation;
• Regulate PMPIs—plant-made pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals;
• Ensure that PIPs—plant incorporated protectants—are regulated at all scales;
• Address hazards other than “plant pest” risks, including: The unwelcome presence of GE genes in neighboring fields of organic or identity-preserved crops, the creation of new compounds in a plant, formed in the plant’s detoxification of herbicides, the movement of genes for manufacture of industrial or pharmaceutical chemicals into crop plants, the creation of “superweeds” (plant pests) through selection for resistance to herbicides continually used on GE crops, the overuse of herbicides in cropping systems dependent on the use of herbicides sprayed over herbicide-tolerant crops, destruction of habitat adjacent to farm fields by overuse of nonselective herbicides sprayed over herbicide-tolerant crops, selection for resistance in insects targeted by PIPs, reduction in populations of insects due to effects of PIPs and destruction of habitat adjacent to fields sprayed by nonselective herbicides over herbicide-tolerant crops, and health effects suffered by those exposed to excessive use of herbicides.

Sign your name to our petition (link below), which we will send to APHIS. To be even more effective, submit your own comments through the Regulations.gov website. Feel free to copy from the language in the petition and/or that in the Beyond Pesticides comments.

Tell USDA not to allow companies to approve their own GE crops.

Petition: USDA Must Offer Basic Protection from Genetically Engineered Organisms
USDA Docket APHIS-2018-0034-0037 

The “Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology” fails to account for the unique risks of genetic engineering, using existing laws like the Plant Protection Act to address issues for which they were not designed. This proposal weakens the APHIS regulations even more.

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 must 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).

In particular, APHIS regulations should:

• Base the regulation of GE organisms on the unique hazards they present;
• Include “synthetic biology” in the definition of regulated genetic engineering;
• Prohibit developers from exempting themselves from regulation;
• Regulate PMPIs—plant-made pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals;
• Ensure that PIPs –plant incorporated protectants—are regulated at all scales;
• Address hazards other than “plant pest” risks, including: The unwelcome presence of GE genes in neighboring fields of organic or identity-preserved crops, the creation of new compounds in a plant, formed in the plant’s detoxification of herbicides, the movement of genes for manufacture of industrial or pharmaceutical chemicals into crop plants, the creation of “superweeds” (plant pests) through selection for resistance to herbicides continually used on GE crops, the overuse of herbicides in cropping systems dependent on the use of herbicides sprayed over herbicide-tolerant crops, destruction of habitat adjacent to farm fields by overuse of nonselective herbicides sprayed over herbicide-tolerant crops, selection for resistance in insects targeted by PIPs, reduction in populations of insects due to effects of PIPs and destruction of habitat adjacent to fields sprayed by nonselective herbicides over herbicide-tolerant crops, and health effects suffered by those exposed to excessive use of herbicides.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2019)  On Friday, Maryland’s highest court upheld the right of local governments to restrict the use of toxic lawn care pesticides more stringently than the state. By denying an appeal from the pesticide industry’s challenge to a lower court ruling, the Maryland Court of Appeals has made official Montgomery County’s 2015 Healthy Lawns Act, which prohibits toxic pesticides from being used on public and private property for cosmetic purposes.

“This long-awaited decision affirms local democratic decision making to protect health and the environment, upholding the first U.S. county law to ban toxic pesticides on private and public property,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of the organization Beyond Pesticides. “The law, now in force, will bring critical health protections for pregnant mothers, children and other vulnerable residents in Montgomery County, and safeguard sensitive wildlife species like pollinators.”

The decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals upholds local democratic decision making in the face of a challenge by industry groups representing lawn care companies and chemical manufacturers. The chemical industry has fought for nearly three decades to suppress the right of local governments in the U.S. to protect public health and safety with pesticide law, having successfully lobbied 43 states to preempt their local political subdivisions’ authority. Seven states uphold local authority, including the state of Maryland, which has affirmed in its legislature the rights of localities by rejecting preemption legislation on numerous occasions.

“This is an important win for the local organic land management movement sweeping the country, as local elected officials embrace practices that protect the health of people and the environment,” said Mr. Feldman. “We hope other Maryland countries watching this lawsuit will follow Montgomery County’s lead and implement these important protections for their own residents.”

The Healthy Lawns Act, first passed in 2015, was overturned by a Circuit Court in 2017. In response, the Montgomery County Council voted to appeal the decision. Nine organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, filed an Amicus brief in support of the county law. This led to a ruling earlier this year by the Maryland Special Court of Appeals, overturning the circuit court decision and affirming Montgomery County’s right to implement the law. “We thank local advocates from Safe Grow Montgomery and the Montgomery County Council for standing up to multi-national pesticide companies’ bullying and regulating these toxic chemicals in a way that reflects the values of their residents and the community,” Mr. Feldman said.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2019) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced, on Saturday, July 6 that it would suspend indefinitely the data collection for its Honey Bee Colonies survey and report. The move came, tellingly, less than three weeks after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) once again approved “emergency” uses of the pesticide sulfoxaflor, a bee-killing compound similar to the notorious neonicotinoids, insecticides that contribute significantly to the phenomena of pollinator collapse (“colony collapse disorder”) and massive insect loss (“insect apocalypse”) that are underway worldwide.

Sulfoxaflor is one of the many toxic pesticides that threaten honey bees, which are critical pollinators responsible for one-third of the food we humans consume. Permitting its 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. As The Huffington Post reported, “Critics say the USDA’s move is the latest evidence of the Trump administration’s war on science, and its goal of suppressing information about serious environmental harms increasing under Donald Trump’s presidency.” Union of Concerned Scientists economist Rebecca Boehm opined to CNN, “This is yet another example of the Trump administration systematically undermining federal research on food safety, farm productivity and the public interest writ large.”

The USDA survey and report had been conducted annually since 2015, through its National Agricultural Statistics Service, to help scientists, farmers, and ultimately, policy makers, understand what has been happening to these pollinators and how to address the crisis. As Common Dreams identifies, “The number of honey bee hives in the U.S. dropped from about six million in 1947 to just 2.4 million in 2008, with 2018 being the worst year on record for hive loss. Beekeepers reported last year that 40 percent of honey bee hives had collapsed, due to a combination of factors including the use of pesticides.”

In 2015, EPA’s unconditional 2013 registration of sulfoxaflor was challenged by plaintiff beekeepers, and overturned by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis of EPA’s having approved use of the compound absent reliable studies on the pesticide’s impacts on honey bee colonies. But in 2016, sulfoxaflor’s registration was amended to proscribe use on crops such as sorghum and cotton, which attract bees. Yet EPA regularly uses an “emergency exemption” rule (authorized under Section 18 of FIFRA, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) to act around such restrictions. In June, as mentioned above, EPA permitted “emergency” uses of sulfoxaflor on cotton and sorghum crops, which could affect as many as 14 million acres. As of 2017, EPA had granted 78 “emergency” exemptions for sulfoxaflor — a pesticide that EPA itself concluded is highly toxic to bees. In 2018, EPA approved treatment of 16.2 million acres with sulfoxaflor under the “emergency” exemption.

The Center for Biological Diversity provides important context for the June exemption: “The approval includes 2019 crops of cotton and sorghum in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. Ten of the 11 states have been granted the approvals for at least four consecutive years for the same ‘emergency.’ Five have been given approvals for at least six consecutive years. ‘The only emergency here is the Trump EPA’s reckless approval of this dangerous bee-killing pesticide,’ said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. ‘It’s sickening that even amid the current insect apocalypse, the EPA’s priority is protecting pesticide industry profits.’” She added, “This administration has been grossly abusing this exemption to allow the use of this one pesticide called sulfoxaflor on a vast acreage year after year.”

EPA’s statement announcing this most recent exemption says, “Pollinator protection efforts remain critical, even under emergency conditions. For each emergency exemption, mitigation measures were put in place to minimize exposure and reduce the potential for unreasonable risks to the environment. The approvals include advisory guidance for protecting bees, and users must also follow all existing EPA guidance for pollinator protection.” The EPA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has recognized the misuse of FIFRA Section 18, and introduced some reality about EPA’s actual commitment to pollinator protection when it wrote in 2018 that EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards.”

The OIG also noted that, “The program office also does not have comprehensive internal controls to manage the emergency exemption data it collects,” and “OPP [Office of Pesticide Programs] does not consistently communicate emergency exemption information with its stakeholders.” Beyond Pesticides added: “Section 18 is intended to be utilized for unanticipated, urgent, and short-lived pest situations. Instead, it is harnessed as an effective, chronic workaround [of] FIFRA registration and appropriate limits of use.”

Beyond Pesticides opposes the current misuse of Section 18 of FIFRA. During the past decade, Beyond Pesticides’ monitoring of the situation has noticed increasing numbers of state requests for Section 18 exemptions to control a variety of resistant weed and insect pests. Exemptions are frequently approved for such requests. Of course, herbicide-resistant weeds and organisms have proliferated across the U.S. in the last 10 years as a predictable consequence of pesticide use. The argument has been made that such sequelae hardly constitute an “emergency.”

The problems of pesticide-induced impacts — on the health of pollinators, humans, and other organisms; the environmental toxicity and harm that pesticides cause; and the serious and emergent issue of resistance — call out for a real fix: adoption of organic land management practices in the agricultural sector. Such practices can prevent disease and infestation, and are a long-term, sustainable approach that would end reliance on chemically intensive controls that exacerbate the problems that are currently the “easy” remedy to which most farming operations turn.

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

Source: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/08/usda-indefinitely-suspends-honey-bee-tracking-survey-states-get-approval-use-bee

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2019) Pregnant mothers with higher concentrations of pesticide metabolites (breakdown products) in their urine are more likely to have children who develop symptoms of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), according to research conducted by the University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital. The results of this study are consistent with past findings from Rutgers University and Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center, indicating a need for researchers to determine causality, and pesticide regulators to rein in toxic insecticide use.

The pesticides investigated by researchers were breakdown products of the organophosphate chlorpyrifos, and the synthetic pyrethroid class of insecticides. The residue of these chemicals are frequently detected on conventional, industrially farmed food products. Although chlorpyrifos is banned from residential use in the U.S., most household bug sprays such as RAID contain high amounts of synthetic pyrethroids.

Among the 948 pregnant Danish women tested, 90% had some level of chlorpyrifos metabolites (3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol) detected in their urine, and 94% were positive for the generic pyrethroid metabolite (3-phenoxybenzoic acid).

Scientists continued to follow up with pregnant women’s children through the first five years of life. A child behavioral check list was completed to determine the relative level of ADHD symptoms.

Concentrations of both chlorpyrifos and pyrethroid breakdown products in maternal urine samples above the median detection rate for the study corresponded with a 98% increase in odds of their children having ADHD scores in the 90^th percentile, a strong predictor for an ADHD diagnosis. According to a regression model calculated by researchers, each time maternal urinary concentrations of generic pyrethroid metabolites doubled, it was associated with a 3% higher expected ADHD score, and a 13% higher chance of the child scoring in the 90^th percentile. The results were similar regardless of gender reported.

“We see a clear connection between these insecticides in the urine samples of the women and the ADHD symptoms displayed by their children,” Louise Dalsager, a co-author of the study and PhD student to The Copenhagen Post. “It was surprising to see that the connection was noticeable, even if the concentrations weren’t particularly high.”

It is particularly concerning that low levels of pesticide metabolites, chemicals that can be relatively quickly excreted from the body through urine, corresponded with the health endpoints studied in offspring up to five years later. And this concern is buttressed by reports that both children and their parents are increasingly exposed to pyrethroid insecticides.

Studies find that higher rates of ADHD is also associated to direct exposure in children, and pyrethroid metabolites found in children’s urine. In 2015, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center found a strong association between urinary pyrethroid concentrations and ADHD, but primarily in boys. Any concentrations found above the level of detection corresponded to a three-fold increase in the chance of developing ADHD, when compared to boys without detectable levels.

Another 2015 study from Rutgers University found that, of over 2,000 children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis, children with higher urinary pyrethroid metabolite levels were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD.

The impact of pyrethroids is not limited to ADHD. A 2017 study by French scientists tracking urinary pyrethroid levels in both pregnant women and their children found associations between both externalizing and internalizing behavioral disorders. A 2013 Canadian study found significant associations between past use of pesticides around the home within the previous month and elevated scores on behavioral and emotional conduct tests. And a 2011 study found that children with high levels of exposure to pyrethroids and the synergist piperonyl butoxide (often added to pyrethroid products to increase their potency) scored lower on tests for cognitive motor development. At the time, renown pediatrician Philip Landrigan remarked that the intelligence lost from pyrethroid exposure was the same level seen by exposure to lead.

ADHD is estimated to affect 8-12% of school-age children worldwide. While it is a complex disease, and genetics may play a role, no specific gene has been found, and there is increasing evidence that environmental factors like pesticide exposure facilitate the development of the condition. The good news is that avoiding pyrethroids and the organophosphate insecticide chloryrifos is possible. Numerous studies find that levels of pesticide metabolites in urine drop precipitously when switching to an all organic diet. And when pest problems occur around the home, you should never need to resort to highly toxic, yet sadly commonly used pyrethroid-based products like RAID. To assist with those pest problems, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe database or reach out to our office through [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

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

Source: The Copenhagen Post, Environmental Research (peer reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2019) The California Coastal Commission will host a public hearing today on a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposal to drop 1.5 tons of the rodenticide brodifacoum, an extremely potent anticoagulant, on the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The Los Angeles Times headline on July 7 read, “Biologists say it’s for the best.” At the least, it is important to highlight that all biologists have not come to a consensus and the topic is very much still under debate. The commission has already received over 700 emails regarding the drop, with 600 opposing it.

Home to rare, endemic seabirds such as the ashy storm-petrel, the Farallon Islands certainly have a serious mouse problem – 59,000 rodents occupy the rocky islands. Mice compete with native species for resources and attract an average of six burrowing owls a year. Owls feast upon ashy storm-petrels when mouse populations drop during the winter, killing hundreds of petrels annually. The global population of the ashy storm-petrel is small (10,000 – 20,000), but it is not considered an endangered species. The Audubon Society in California, which supports the brodifacoum program, worked with experts who say the eradication of invasive mice is the top priority for protecting the ashy storm-petrel from further decline.

Critics do not deny that invasive mice need to be managed on the islands but take issue with the aerial broadcast of an extremely potent rat poison. “This is a case of using a shotgun to go after an ant,” said Richard Charter of the Ocean Foundation. Curious and hungry nontarget species such as Western Gulls, fish, and other marine animals become poisoned when they eat bait. What more, there can be secondary exposure when raptors or marine animals consume these poisoned animals. The predicted losses of Western Gulls from this project, for example, is approximately 1,700 individuals. As it takes a while for the poison to take effect, some fear that gulls will drop gruesomely from the sky in public places along the coast. USFWS says they will integrate a nonlethal “hazing” to keep nontarget birds at bay during peak poison times, but that does not protect marine animals from pellets dropping into the ocean.

A 2015 study conducted after aerial drop of rodenticides on Palmyra Island off the coast of Hawaii reported, “We documented brodifacoum [rodenticide] residues in soil, water, and biota, and documented mortality of nontarget organisms. Some bait (14–19% of the target application rate) entered the marine environment to distances 7 m from the shore. After the application commenced, carcasses of 84 animals representing 15 species of birds, fish, reptiles and invertebrates were collected opportunistically as potential nontarget mortalities. In addition, fish, reptiles, and invertebrates were systematically collected for residue analysis. Brodifacoum residues were detected in most (84.3%) of the animal samples analyzed. Although detection of residues in samples was anticipated, the extent and concentrations in many parts of the food web were greater than expected.”

Despite the unintended consequences, USFWS claims that aerial drops of copious amounts of poison is the only effective way to get rid of the mice, and points to islands in New Zealand where it has worked before. However, local fisherman and conservationists in New Zealand had qualms with the collateral damage of rodenticides on the Rangitoto and Motutapu Islands. Penguins, dolphins, and fish were found dead directly after aerial deposits, but public officials never tested them for brodifacoum.

A bait station where the rodenticides and their targets are contained, in combination with other methodologies, is an example of an effective albeit labor-intensive middle ground approach to extirpation. Beyond Pesticides is of the opinion that a brodifacoum drop is a toxic, simple solution to a complex problem that requires more research into integrated alternatives.

Beyond Pesticides offers information on integrated pest management (IPM) and safe alternatives to toxic pesticides in our ManageSafe™ resource.

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

Source: Los Angeles Times

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2019) Teens and adolescents living in agricultural areas and exposed to organophosphate insecticides are at higher risk of depression, according to the findings of a new study in the International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. As rates of depression and suicide rise for teenagers in the US and throughout the world, public health researchers are working to find out why by investigating potential triggers. Toxic pesticide use represents a risk that can be addressed head on, protecting children and their families from a range of diseases that threaten public health.

Jose R. Suarez-Lopez, MD, PhD, at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, has been studying children living in the Ecuadorian Andes since 2008. His team assessed 529 individuals aged between 11 and 17 for their blood levels of acetylcholinesterase (AChE), an enzyme necessary for the proper functioning of nerves in the body. Exposure to organophosphate insecticides like chlorpyrifos and malathion have been shown to lower levels of AChE in the body. An assessment was also given to the children to fill out, in order to determine the severity of depressive symptoms or anxiety.

Results showed that children with lower levels of AChE were more likely to report symptoms consistent with depression on their assessment. Researchers specifically found the trend to be stronger for young women, and children under the age of 14.

“Agricultural workers and people in these communities have long offered anecdotal reports of a rise in adolescent depression and suicidal tendencies,” said Suarez-Lopez. “This is the first study to provide empirical data establishing that link using a biological marker of exposure, and it points to a need for further study.”

Indeed, this is the first study linking pesticides to depression that did not include self-reported pesticide exposure. In this instance, using AChE as a biomarker adds weight to the findings and suggests further study should be undertaken to understand the connection and investigate causality.

A number of studies have linked pesticide use to depression in farmers. A 2013 study found that farmers using herbicides were two and a half times more likely to be treated for depression than farmers who did not use herbicides. A broader investigation based on data from 21,000 pesticide applicators enrolled in the long-running US Agricultural Health Study found that those who experienced a pesticide poisoning incident or used pesticides from several different classes had higher rates of depression. Specifically, research found that use of fumigants, organochlorines, and organophosphates all increased risk of farmer depression.

Despite the urgings of public health scientists and professionals, organophosphate insecticides continue to be used in the United States. The findings of this and other studies indicate that farmers and those living in agricultural communities are at disproportional risk of mental health problems as a result of pesticide use. And this is in addition to the myriad of neurodevelopmental, reproductive, respiratory and other health problems individuals risk from exposure to organophosphates.

Alternative methods of agricultural production, like a transition to organic practices, can eliminate the use of organophosphates and a range of other hazardous pesticides. Researchers will continue to study the deleterious effects of these chemicals, but in the face of regulatory agencies more concerned with private profits than public good, it is up to the public to advocate for health and safety measures. Start by telling your state leaders to ban neurotoxic organophosphates, and consider getting active in your local community to ensure lasting change.

Source: UCSD Press Release, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2019) Scientists studying the precipitous decline in populations of monarch butterflies are searching for causes, and pesticide use is one of the factors under their (figurative) microscopes. Purdue University entomology professor Ian Kaplan, PhD and doctoral student Paola Olaya-Arenas recently turned their attention to a poorly studied potential factor — exposure during monarchs’ larval stage to non-target pesticides on their primary host plant and food source, common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). In Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, the researchers report finding evidence of 14 different agricultural pesticides on milkweed near Indiana farm fields, including neonicotinoids clothianidin and thiamethoxam, the pyrethroid deltamethrin, and imidacloprid in a few samples.

The research team’s primary aim was to identify and measure the range of pesticides to which monarch caterpillars might be exposed, or which they might consume, on milkweed plants in agricultural landscapes. Secondarily, they hoped to learn how pesticide presence varies with distance between milkweed plants and nearby agricultural sites. In the subject Indiana environs, where corn and soybeans are dominant crops, the study found neonicotinoid residues on milkweed, particularly those of the active ingredients in clothianidin and thiamethoxam. They note, “Although seed treatment data are no longer reported for U.S. row crops, most corn in our region is seed treated, primarily with clothianidin, and much of the soybean acreage also employs a seed treatment, mainly thiamethoxam . . . . thus it is not surprising that these two insecticides were among the ones most commonly detected.”

The precipitous plummet in monarch butterfly populations — 80–90% over the past 15–20 years — portends a poor prognosis. A 2017 study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that western monarchs have an extinction risk of 86% within the next 50 years. A variety of factors has been implicated in monarch loss: Beyond Pesticides reported in 2018 that, for example, climate change can alter monarch migration patterns, and logging and development in Mexico and coastal California have eliminated significant habitat for monarch overwintering.

Perhaps a chief reason for the decline is loss of habitat and food sources due to the rapid and rabid adoption, in agriculture, of glyphosate-based herbicides and the GE (genetically engineered) crop seeds designed to be used with them. As Beyond Pesticides has written, “utilization of these GE crops has all but eliminated milkweeds from these fields, thus eliminating the butterfly’s source of food,” as well as sites for larval hosting. An estimated 165 million acres of breeding habitat in the U.S. have been lost to herbicide spraying and development.

Despite advocacy organizations’ encouragement to homeowners, land managers, and groundskeepers to plant (and not mow down) common milkweed, monarch numbers have continued to decline. Milkweed loves “disturbed ground,” whether farm fields, fence rows, pastures, roadsides, residential gardens, and even thin lawns. It could, before the advent of intensive herbicide use, particularly with GE crops, often be found growing among food crops in farm fields.

Dr. Kaplan and Ms. Olaya-Arenas note that a great deal of recent investigation and advocacy on non-target impacts on pollinators has focused on neonicotinoid pesticides, in large part because of their explosive adoption in agriculture across the globe. Much of that attention has gone to impacts on bees, but butterflies are also affected. Their published research paper notes, “Two recent time-scale analyses of reductions in butterfly diversity over the past several decades link these changes with the introduction and rise of neonicotinoids in the UK.” Of their study, the co-authors add, “The data suggest that early-season monarchs are at greater risk from neonicotinoid exposure than subsequent generations occurring later in the season. Similarly, our data suggest strong annual fluctuations in risk, indicating that monarchs likely encounter a different suite of pesticides each year.”

The researchers collected and evaluated 1,500+ milkweed leaves from seven different sites in Indiana over a two-year period, and found that: (1) insecticide presence and concentrations decreased with greater distance from agricultural fields; and (2) presence and concentration of pesticide compounds appeared to vary by year and month; e.g., clothianidin was found in June but not later in the growing season, and thiamethoxam and deltamethrin were found in year two of the study, but not in year one.

Some organizations have advised planting milkweed at least 125 feet from any farm field. Dr. Kaplan and Ms. Olaya-Arenas say that this metric is not really based in any science, adding, “It’s not a bad idea to put some distance between milkweed and farm fields, but we didn’t see a magic drop off at 125 feet.” This metric may have come from a 2016 U.S. Department of Agriculture “wildlife habitat evaluation guide and decision support tool for monarch butterfly restoration,” which recommended a “125-foot-wide pesticide-free buffer around restored milkweed habitat.”

The research team points to (without outright recommending) a different metric: plant milkweed even farther away from agricultural fields, because some pesticides can be found as far as two kilometers from the site of application. Indeed, spraying of pesticides via aircraft can reach as little as 50% of a target crop — with the other 50% trespassing to areas as far as 30 kilometers downwind.

Such metrics underscore the reality that a very small percentage of the active ingredients in pesticides actually make contact with the targeted pest organism; the rest is subsumed into the larger ecosystem. Neonicotinoids, which are used widely to coat seeds — and which use was a big part of the rapid rise in neonicotinoid employment starting in roughly 2013 — are one of the most environmentally damaging of pesticides. The co-authors identify an example of one reason that might be: in one study, a mere “1.3% of initial seed treatment is recovered from corn plants exposed to the neonicotinoid clothianidin, with the remaining 98–99% of material leached into the environment.” They also identify that “monarch declines have temporally coincided with the increase in use of neonicotinoids throughout agricultural regions in their summer breeding habitat.”

As the researchers say in their paper’s conclusion, “Risk assessment evaluating the potential impacts of pesticides on monarchs entails a two-step process; first, documenting the chemicals that larvae and/or adults are exposed to in the environment, and second, experimentally testing those chemicals most commonly encountered to assess lethal and sub-lethal effects.” Having addressed the first step through this study, they add, “We strongly emphasize . . . that pesticide presence does not necessarily translate into impact. Unlike honeybees, for which LD₅₀ data are widely available on most compounds, at present such information is only available for clothianidin in the monarch system. [BP note: LD₅₀ means the median lethal dose, or the amount of the substance required to kill 50% of a test population.] Clearly, a major emphasis of future research efforts should be to close this knowledge gap by quantifying monarch larval responses to a range of pesticides under controlled lab settings.”

The monarch butterfly faces an uphill slog as it confronts the forces of development, pesticides, climate change, logging, and other sources of habitat destruction and contamination. Solutions must happen on multiple fronts, and efforts are underway. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agreed to a 2020 deadline for deciding on protection for monarchs under the Endangered Species Act — in response to a petition, filed five years ago by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety, that triggered a 2014 status review. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service has deployed a Monarch Butterfly Habitat Development Project to provide funding for efforts to restore monarch habitat and plant common milkweed. It focuses on efforts in the Midwest and on the Great Plains, where it seeks to improving grassland habitat for monarchs. That said, as Beyond Pesticides has identified, the program has been woefully underfunded.

Regular folks can also have an impact in their own and community gardens. Planting milkweed in such environs, as well as “being kind” to it where it is discovered, can help create oases for monarchs. In addition, the toll taken by GE crops and their companion herbicides can be beaten back by purchasing organic food and other organic products whenever possible. See, also, Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind and Hedgerows for Biodiversity. For additional ideas on protecting monarchs and other pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage.

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

Sources: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00223/full?_ga=2.99585561.668228990.1562015812-1408830912.1562015812 and https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2019/Q2/pesticides-found-in-monarchs-milkweed-near-farm-fields.html

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2019) This is a story about a chemical pesticide, a fungicide, in wide use for which the mode of action, i.e., the ability to cause harm, has not been fully understood. It is not a story unique to this pesticide. Rather, it is an important story to consider when deciding to use a pesticide or allowing a pesticide to be used. The question is whether the chemical could be broadly problematic beyond the target organisms, in this case fungi? In its coverage of a study published in March, the American Association for the Advancement of Science publication, EurekAlert, reported that, “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.”

The research study, published in March in Scientific Reports and led by T. Tristan Brandhorst, PhD (in the lab of Dr. Bruce Klein at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and UW School of Medicine and Public Health), sheds light on that mechanism and raises the alarm about implications of the discovery. Among the myriad pesticides used in agriculture is fludioxonil, a phenylpyrrole fungicide, which was developed to treat seeds during storage. However, it has come to be used commonly on grains, vegetables, fruits, and ornamental plants during cultivation, and worse (more on this below), to treat produce after it has been harvested to extend “shelf life.” Though fludioxonil is effective in killing fungi, the mode, or mechanism, of action for this pesticide was previously not well understood.

Fludioxonil was introduced in 1993–1994 by Ciba-Geigy (now Syngenta), and pesticides that include the compound are now marketed under various brand names, including Cannonball, Switch, Medallion, Helix, Celest, Apron, Agri Star Fludioxonil, Dyna-shield Fludioxonil, Maxim, Scholar, Spirato, and others. Syngenta promotes it for use on “targeted fungi, such as snow mold, seedborne and soilborne Fusarium, [and] seedling blights or bunts.” Its use has increased in the 25 years since then, and particularly in the last few, ratcheting up concern about its features and impacts.

In a previous investigation, Drs. Brandhorst and Klein pointed to the uncertainty about how fludioxonil actually causes fungi cell death, asserting that this uncertainty merits a re-evaluation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its potential impacts on human health, noting reports of the fungicide’s ability to disrupt hepatic, endocrine, and neurological systems. Prior to this current study, it was believed that fludioxonil targets hybrid histidine kinase (HHK), a protein in fungal cells. Syngenta has theorized, re: the mechanism of action, that fludioxonil binds to HHK, activating a biochemical process that causes fungal cells to kill themselves. In 2016, Dr. Klein’s lab team found that, although fludioxonil needs HHK in order to kill fungi, the pesticide and protein do not directly interact.

The scientists in Dr. Klein’s lab turned to the hypothesis that oxidative stress — a common effect of pesticides on their targets — might be the linchpin. (Oxidative stress is an imbalance, in cells, between the production of free radicals and reactive metabolites, and their elimination by antioxidants.) Yet, the team found that, when they exposed fungi to various kinds of oxidative stress, cells remained healthy. Finally, the researchers discovered that fludioxonil inhibits an enzyme related to cellular sugar metabolism, causing (via a spike in methylglyoxal release) activation of the deadly HHK cascade.

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.” He references a 2007 investigation that demonstrated that in fungi, disruption of glutathione homeostasis (which manages oxidative stress) synergistically enhances the toxicity of fludioxonil, suggesting that an oxidative stress response pathway may overshadow osmoregulation functions (maintenance of constant osmotic pressure in the fluids of an organism by the control of water and salt concentrations). Glutathione is primarily an intracellular antioxidant, which protects cells against the effects of free radicals — which can include damage to DNA. Fludioxonil has been shown to have DNA damaging impacts on human liver cells, and Dr. Brandhorst suspects that glutathione depletion (a signaling event that regulates the activation of cell death pathways) may ultimately be identified as a factor in fludioxonil-related hepatic damage. The enzyme-suppressing action of fludioxonil on an enzyme common to all cells is at the heart of the alarm this research is raising, but it is not the only reason the fungicide needs to be re-evaluated.

Fludioxonil persists in soil — near the surface for weeks, and for years if it ends up deeper in the soil, where sunlight cannot speed its degradation; it is also a “super toxin” for earthworms. The fungicide’s extensive post-harvest use on food crops is of particular concern because it eliminates the chance for wind, rain, and ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) light to break down the compound, and once applied, the waxy fungicide is not easily removed by rinsing. Further, UV-vis treatment of produce (which is sometimes done to reduce pathogens on fresh fruits and vegetables) actually significantly increases the toxicity of fludioxonil.

The fungicide also is an EPA Category I toxin — “highly toxic and severely irritating” — to aquatic plants, bacteria, insects, fish, and aquatic invertebrates, generating concern about its use near water bodies or shorelines. Beyond all that, 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.”

In addition, the issue of synergistic action among multiple pesticide compounds, or active and adjuvant ingredients in a pesticide, is woefully under-addressed by regulators. Synergistic action was explained simply and long ago by Beyond Pesticides in its journal Pesticides and You: “The concept of interaction is fundamental to understanding the processes by which chemical mixtures act. If the effect is simply additive, the sum of the effects is the same as if we were exposed to each chemical individually. Synergy occurs when the effect of a mixture of chemicals is greater than the sum of the individual effects.”

The federal bodies in the U.S. that are supposed to ensure the safety of both chemicals used in the environment, and those used on food crops and products — EPA, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), respectively — fail to do so. Another passage from the Pesticides and You article offers background: “In 1996, EPA was required for the first time to consider cumulative pesticide exposures in limited circumstances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). [That Act], which amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), recognizes that real-world pesticide exposures do not occur as single discrete exposures to a specific pesticide, but rather in combination [with] several pesticides at once. . . . To address the issue of multiple pesticide exposures, FQPA directs EPA to consider combinations of pesticides that have a common mechanism of toxicity when setting tolerances” [“acceptable” levels of pesticide residue in agricultural products]. Because this mandate is a narrow one, confined to compounds that have a “common mechanism of toxicity,” many chemicals are never evaluated by EPA for their synergistic potential.

Thus, EPA continues not to evaluate comprehensively for synergistic effects, which can be more toxic than exposure to a single compound. In 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity wrote an extensive report on this issue: Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails. Adding to the concern about fludioxonil’s mechanism of action and the implications for all kinds of organisms, including humans, is its synergistic potential. A 2012 study by French researchers found that a mixture of fludioxonil and cyprodinil, another fungicide, yielded data suggesting cytotoxic (lethal to cells) and genotoxic (damaging to DNA) effects at low concentrations, and with a significantly higher effect of the mixture than would be expected from an exposure response to the individual fungicides. This study by Dr. Brandhorst, et al. adds to the growing body of research on the interactive effects of pesticides on human health and the environment.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a far-more Precautionary approach to pest control in land management and agriculture, with a transition to organic methods as the ultimate goal. It also monitors and reports on emerging research and developments related to pesticide use through its Daily News Blog and its journal, Pesticides and You.

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

Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433957/ and personal communication with the study’s lead author, T. Tristan Brandhorst [[email protected]]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2019) A disturbing association between urinary triclosan concentrations and osteoporosis has been identified in an epidemiological study. Drawing from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) results for 1,848 U.S. adult women, the authors conclude that higher concentrations of urinary triclosan are associated with lower bone mass density and higher prevalence of osteoporosis among U.S. adult women.

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, adds weight to previous laboratory results, which showed that endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as triclosan can interfere with bone metabolism. Triclosan and its byproducts are known endocrine disruptors and have been shown in laboratory studies to interfere with collagen and bone structure. Taken together with previous findings, the new epidemiological results demonstrate that the ubiquitous endocrine disruptor triclosan “could lead to lower BMD [benchmark dose] and increased prevalence of osteoporosis in U.S. adult women.”

Triclosan is used as an antimicrobial agent in products regulated by both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and cumulative exposure to triclosan registered by both agencies pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Triclosan exposure has become so common that it has shown up in the blood, urine and breast milk of people across the globe. While people who use triclosan products daily have higher levels of the chemical in their bodies, even consumers who do not use triclosan on their skin are exposed to it through food, water, and even household dust.

Several independent, peer-reviewed research studies have identified triclosan as an endocrine disrupting chemical, not only through its effects on the thyroid system but also through its disruption of ovarian and testicular steroidogenesis. A study by British researchers found that triclosan has estrogenic and androgenic hormone properties, and exposure could potentially contribute to the development of breast cancer. Despite these findings, EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) has not included triclosan among chemicals to investigate for endocrine disrupting effects. Therefore, EPA’s evaluation of triclosan fails to address one of the most concerning aspects of its chemical activity with respect to human health.

On top of its endocrine disrupting effects, recent work shows that triclosan is a possible human carcinogen. A 2016 peer-reviewed study published in the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology found that triclosan promotes liver cancer cell development in mice through pathways shared with humans. EPA, however, relies on outdated science in its determination of the carcinogenicity of triclosan.

In addition to direct modes of carcinogenicity, triclosan poses risks due to release of known carcinogenic and highly toxic byproducts and impurities. Triclosan, which has been shown to be frequently present as a contaminant in finished U.S. drinking water, mixes with chlorinated drinking water to form the probable human carcinogen, chloroform. When released into surface water and exposed to sunlight, triclosan can also react with chlorinated water to form toxic polychlorinated dioxins. Dioxins have been shown to cause health problems as severe as weakening of the immune system, decreased fertility, miscarriage, birth defects, and cancer.

The present study is not the first to link triclosan exposure to adverse health outcomes in humans. A recent peer-reviewed study, for example, found an association between urinary triclosan and elevated body mass index (BMI) among NHANES survey participants. That study found that the presence versus absence of triclosan in urine was associated with a significant increase of 0.94 BMI points. Taken together, these epidemiological studies raise concern that a by-now ubiquitous chemical may be driving both increased BMI and decreased bone mass density, thus placing more people at risk of osteoporosis and other adverse health outcomes.

The new findings add yet another concern to the list of ailments that have been linked to triclosan exposure. What remains to be done is for EPA and FDA to act in accordance with these known risks, and ban all uses of triclosan, which presently contribute to unacceptable degrees of exposure impacting most of the US population. Beyond Pesticides holds that safer alternatives are available and must be used to protect public health and the environment.

Join Beyond Pesticides to end to the registration of pesticides with known adverse effects, and start of a new system of registering only those products which can be shown to be essential, effective, and least-toxic to humans and the environment. Stay abreast of new science and regulatory updates by tracking the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog.

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

Source: Association between urinary triclosan with bone mass density and osteoporosis in the US adult women, 2005-2010 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2019) German cockroaches, the bane of many apartment-dwellers throughout the U.S., can rapidly develop cross-resistance to insecticides they have never been exposed to, according to researchers from Purdue University. “This is a previously unrealized challenge in cockroaches,” said Michael Scharf, PhD, whose findings were published in the journal Scientific Reports. “Cockroaches developing resistance to multiple classes of insecticides at once will make controlling these pests almost impossible with chemicals alone.” In the face of pesticide resistance, integrated measures that focus structural, mechanical, and cultural pest management practices must become standard practice for this notorious pest.

Dr. Scharf and his colleagues began their study at two separate housing complexes in Indianapolis, IN and Danville, IL. Prior to the study, researchers pre-treated a subset of cockroaches in each building, and selected five insecticides out of 14 commercially available. These insecticides – abamectin, pyriproxyfen, thiamethoxam, lambda-cyhalothrin, and boric acid, were used because cockroaches had already developed significant resistance to others tested, mostly synthetic pyrethroids. Pre-treatment applications of synthetic pyrethroids revealed over 80% of cockroaches surviving.

For the insecticides left with any level of efficacy, researchers established three separate treatment approaches, and stuck with it for six months, with one application each month, to test for additional changes in resistance. In the first, only the insecticide abamectin was applied. In the second, a mixture of insecticides was applied. And for the third, insecticides were rotated each month.

Overall, all the treatment regimens established fared very poorly against German cockroaches. Only the single abamectin treatment showed any promise in one housing complex. At the Indianapolis location, cockroaches were found to be susceptible to the chemical beforehand, and numbers decreased significantly after two applications. However, at the Danville location, roughly 10% were already resistant to abamectin, which permitted their population to flourish after the first application.

Rotating the insecticides used each month resulted in cockroach populations that were relatively stable or increased, while the treatment with a mixture of pesticides resulted in a population explosion. And researchers found that for cockroaches that survived after an application of one chemical didn’t develop resistance merely to that one chemical or even class of chemicals, they also developed resistance to pesticides in other chemical classes. This occurred even if they had never been exposed to these new pesticides in their life.

“We would see resistance increase four- or six-fold in just one generation,” Dr. Scharf said. “We didn’t have a clue that something like that could happen this fast.”

The research results track what farmers are experiencing in agriculture as a result of pressure from agrichemical and insurance companies to spray or grow pesticide-incorporated genetically engineered (PI-GE) crops as a preventative practice. A 2013 study found that “stacking” multiple toxin-producing genes into PI-GE corn crops produced resistance effects in corn earworms similar to what Dr. Scharf and his team discovered. Researchers assumed that earworms resistant to one toxin would survive on one-toxin plants, but die when consuming two-toxin plants because they had not yet developed resistance to the new formulation. However, as Dr. Carrière, Yves Carrière, PhD, lead author of the GE study explains, “[O]n the two-toxin plants, the caterpillars selected for resistance to one toxin survived significantly better than caterpillars from a susceptible strain.”

And in crop fields repeatedly doused with herbicides, a 2018 study by scientists at University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom (UK) determined that herbicide use was not only the major, but the singular factor driving weed resistance. Other factors, such as cultural techniques, or herbicide rotations could not ameliorate resistance at all. And like cockroaches, weed resistance to one herbicide was likely to drive increasingly rapid resistance to other, different chemical formulations.

As Dr. Scharf’s work indicates, integrated methods to address pests are critical to an effective treatment plan. And there is no doubt it is important to control cockroaches, as they increase risk of asthma, and can carry a number of human pathogens. But it is simply not enough to spray a pesticide and assume the job is done. In fact, you may be creating an even worse pest problem.

To manage cockroaches, focus in denying them access to the necessities of life –food, water, and shelter. Seal up cracks and crevices that may allow entryway, install doorsweeps to further impede movement, and make sure food and water is never left out, and all surfaces are clean/vacuumed. Throughout the process, monitor populations with traps to gauge areas of activity, and the intensity of the infestation. Once you have done everything you can to deny food, water, and shelter, employ the only insecticide in the study scientists say cockroaches did not develop a resistance to: boric acid. Place boric acid bait gels around areas of activity, but don’t let up on sanitation or structural repairs. For a step-by-step checklist and guide to take care of a German cockroach problem, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe entry on this atrocious pest.

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

Source: Purdue University Press Release, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2019) France made a decision in May to ban a widely-used fungicide because it damages the endocrine system. In contrast, there has been a stark failure to protect health in the U.S. Despite a Congressional mandate, EPA is not acting on endocrine disruptors linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. This is a tragedy.

Ask your elected members of Congress to demand that EPA tests and acts on regulatory endocrine disruptors as required by law.

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 21 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides.  As of 2019, the program has stalled entirely.

To ensure appropriate follow-through, Congress gave EPA a timeline to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. It started a screening program (Tier 1) and reported results in 2009. According to EPA, Tier 1 Screening (which looks at high exposure chemicals) is not sufficient to implicate a chemical as an endocrine disrupting chemical. It is instead a step to define which chemicals must undergo Tier 2 testing – the only stage that can influence regulatory decision-making. It is unclear when or how EPA will move forward with Tier 2 testing, and how, if at all, any Tier 2 findings will be used to inform actual regulation.

Given widespread exposure to endocrine disruptors, the time is past due for EPA action.

Ask your elected members of Congress to demand that EPA tests and acts on regulatory endocrine disruptors as required by law.

Letter to Congress

I am writing to ask you elevate a critical public health issue –the regulation of endocrine disrupting pesticides. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia. EPA has simply not carried out its statutory mandate to regulate endocrine disrupting pesticides.

Endocrine disruptors are linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. This is a public health tragedy that cannot be ignored.

Since EPA announced it was ready to begin testing both active and “inert” (usually the majority of the undisclosed product ingredients that make the solution, dust, or granule) pesticide ingredients for potential endocrine disrupting effects in 2009, the protocols EPA proposed to use have become significantly outdated, having been first recommended in 1998. In the interim, science has progressed such that it offered more sophisticated assumptions than those that informed the EPA test designs. Further, as Beyond Pesticides noted in 2009, “Each of EPA’s tests and assays was designed under the surveillance of corporate lawyers who had bottom lines to protect, and assorted toxicologists who were not trained in endocrinology and developmental biology. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia.”

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 21 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides.

To ensure timely follow-through, EPA was given a timeline by Congress to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. As of 2019, the program has stalled entirely. That has real costs. Please use the power of your office to push EPA to meet its responsibility to protect the health of people.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2019) As is the case in many countries, the conversation about the use of pesticides has been especially vigorous in the past few years. Switzerland is a case in point: it is undergoing deep scrutiny of pesticide use, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics, Baskut Tuncak, has now said publicly that pesticide companies’ behavior is “seriously deficient” regarding human rights (especially those of children), and that the Swiss government should act more aggressively to phase out use of these hazardous chemicals.

Recently, the pesticide conversation has ratcheted up several notches, not only in the U.S., but also globally, due to greater public awareness of the health and environmental threats of pesticide use, more and more research underscoring those threats, and pointedly, the cascade of litigation against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) for harm to individuals who have used its glyphosate-based products. Public awareness in Switzerland is also mounting in response to global developments, to recent discoveries that small streams in Swiss agricultural areas are heavily polluted with pesticides, and to broadening recognition that pesticides are linked to a plethora of harms to human health, pollinators, water, farmworkers, wildlife, ecosystems and biodiversity, and more. In 2017, a UN report found that human rights are adversely affected by pesticide use: not only has industrialized agriculture not succeeded in “eliminating world hunger”; it has hurt human and environmental health and well-being.

Corporate disregard for the impacts of pesticide products (which is enabled by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] in the U.S.), rampant malfeasance, and undue influence on governmental regulation all underscore the “seriously deficient” description used by Mr. Tuncak. He commented in the swissinfo.ch interview, “There is a serious deficiency in terms of the human rights due diligence carried out by pesticide manufacturers and other chemical companies in terms of what happens after the point of sale. . . . Most chemical companies have a very shallow approach to human rights due diligence.” He admonished the Swiss government for failing to hold businesses accountable for ensuring chemical safety, and phasing out chemicals of concern. He also critiques countries broadly for their lack of accountability to the pledges made under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management framework, saying that the agreement “hasn’t made a significant dent in phasing out highly hazardous pesticides in the past 13 years.”

In 2014 and again in 2017, Mr. Tuncak was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes. The website swissinfo.ch interviewed him about his UN charge to assess how pesticides impact human rights, and his thoughts about the responsibilities of governments and industry.

His first comments in the interview went right to the heart of concerns about health impacts of pesticides: “What really concerns me is the widespread exposure of children during sensitive periods of development and how chemicals are found to be more and more hazardous at lower and lower exposure levels over time. Health trends ranging from declining sperm count to rising breast cancer rates are increasingly being associated with exposure to these chemicals in childhood. Particularly concerning is the way multiple chemical exposures can combine and interact with each other to impact health. Yet the few risk assessments that have been completed focus on the risk of exposure to individual substances, and don’t consider the human rights of the child. We are discovering all kinds of nuanced effects of these chemicals on health, which increasingly is changing the way we think about diseases and disabilities that develop later in life. I find this widespread prevalence of childhood exposure very concerning not only based on the science, but also the values, principles and rights of children that are recognised by nearly 200 countries.” Beyond Pesticides has frequently covered the threats of pesticides to children and their development.

The Swiss government has been a bit “all over the map,” and certainly inconsistent, on the matter of pesticide regulation. Critics note, for example, its glacial implementation of a narrowly focused pesticide reduction plan passed in 2017 that purports to reduce by 50% the risks of long-term soil and water pollution by adopting more-sustainable agricultural policies. At the same moment, the Federal Office of Agriculture (FOAG) issued a statement saying it’s not possible to dispense with pesticides altogether. On the ground, activists have advanced the Clean Drinking Water and Healthy Food initiative, which aims to cut subsidies to farmers who use pesticides or antibiotics, and the so-called Neuchâtel initiative, which looks to ban pesticide use in the country, as well as importation of food containing pesticides — both of which should end up going to the ballot box in the next two years.

Just this month, the FOAG banned 12 pesticides that contain chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl, which are commonly used on potatoes, vegetables, berries, and grapes. Yet the ban, which affects a total of 26 products, also allows three of them to continue to be sold for another year. The Swiss parliament is currently considering two additional initiatives to restrict the use and sale of pesticides.

Further, ARC2020 — a multi-stakeholder platform of more than 150 civil society networks and organizations (from 22 European Union member states) that work on issues affected by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy — has noted that Switzerland has made progress on the sustainable agriculture front, including reducing use of what Europeans refer to as Plant Protection Products (PPPs), which are synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.

ARC2020 wrote in March 2019, “The strict Swiss regulatory regime places biodiversity at the heart of agricultural policy. Subsidies for Swiss farmers are pegged to compliance with regulations on pesticide use, nutrient budgets, crop rotation and livestock. Farmers are also required to set aside 7% of farmland for Biodiversity Promotion Areas (BPAs) such as grassland, hedgerows and wildflower strips. Direct payments for ecosystem services are designed to compensate farmers for loss of income. Agroscope’s role is to develop direct and indirect alternatives to pesticides. ‘We only resort to synthetic plant protection products once all other measures have been exhausted.’”

The human rights issues related to pesticide use comprise one aspect of a broader question being discussed across global societies — whether people have inherent rights to health, a livable climate, and clean oceans, air, water, and/or food. The UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights website notes, “A safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment is integral to the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and sanitation. Without a healthy environment, we are unable to fulfil our aspirations or even live at a level commensurate with minimum standards of human dignity. At the same time, protecting human rights helps to protect the environment. When people are able to learn about, and participate in, the decisions that affect them, they can help to ensure that those decisions respect their need for a sustainable environment.”

Beyond Toxics further lays out the rationale for viewing pesticide use and other issues through a human rights lens: “Human rights norms are not arbitrary. They are ethical standards recognized by citizens in our country and by peoples around the world as moral duties and protections that everyone should be able to expect from their governments. If governments, or businesses regulated by governments, violate these norms, they are violating formally recognized standards of justice.”

In 2017, the International Monsanto Tribunal — which was established by the Monsanto Tribunal Foundation, an initiative of civil society groups — litigated Monsanto to hold it accountable for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide. The presiding judges, having heard testimony from experts, witnesses, and victims in The Hague, Netherlands, home to the UN International Court of Justice, delivered their legal opinion on Monsanto’s impact on issues including human rights, food access, environmental health, and scientific research. Their conclusion: that Monsanto has engaged in practices that have negatively affected people’s right to a healthy environment, to food, and to health, and that if ecocide were recognized as an international criminal law, the corporation would possibly be found guilty.

On a different frontier, in the U.S. courts, the question of human rights in the face of the climate emergency is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Juliana v. United States, a lawsuit brought by a group of 21 young people. The plaintiffs’ case “demands that the government step up to protect today’s children, and future generations, from the worst effects of climate change. It says they risk being deprived of their ‘rights to life, liberty, property, and public trust resources by federal government acts that knowingly destroy, endanger, and impair the unalienable climate system that nature endows.’”

In April 2019, a report, The Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment in Climate Change Litigation, examined issues raised in lawsuits in the U.S., the Netherlands, Switzerland, Columbia, and Pakistan, and points to cautious optimism about the human rights bases of the suits. Environmental law professor at Wake Forest School of Law and former special rapporteur for Human Rights at the UN, John Knox, commented, “One of the valuable aspects of human rights is that they set out certain basic protections that we think are necessary for human dignity, equality and freedom. . . . And so while the challenges may change and evolve, the need to protect people’s basic human rights should remain a constant.”

The “rights” lens was posited, vis a vis pesticide use, way back in 2004 by noted scientist and activist Sandra Steingraber, PhD, who wrote for Beyond Pesticides about the issue of human rights and people’s unwitting exposure to chemicals in our air, food, and water. The human rights of farmworkers and their families, and child farm workers, are often acutely at issue because of intensive pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides advocates for a precautionary approach to the use of chemicals, and asserts that organic approaches to agriculture and land management represent the real solutions to the threats of chemically intensive production. It supports steps that bring the world closer to the day those are realized.

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

Source: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/health-and-environment_un-expert-urges-phase-out-of-hazardous-pesticides/45040316

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2019) A review of scientific literature urges for swift societal action on the collapse of insect populations worldwide, according to authors of a study. The authors point out that while there is a need for more research on the extent of the phenomenon as well as causal factors, there is currently sufficient evidence to spur and inform transformational policy in response to a definite worldwide crisis. The paper, Declines in insect abundance and diversity: We know enough to act now, provides a run-down of actions to take—from national policy to apartment balconies.

Recent reports name alarming drops in insect diversity and abundance, prompting the ominous label of “insect apocalypse.” Almost half of all insect species are rapidly declining, and a third are being threatened with extinction. The authors state, “Although there has been some criticism of specific studies, the overall trend is clear and the broad geographic reach is perhaps the most dire feature of the current crisis, as assessments from all continents except Antarctica reveal declines.”

The main culprits of insect demise are habitat loss and degradation, pesticides, and climate change. The authors note that it is less critical, at this juncture, to focus on the complexities of the individual issues than to understand that many factors act as a “firing squad” of stressors. “In many cases it will be difficult to identify the killing shot,” the authors write, “but we know the bullets are flying and we know where they are coming from.”

If the loss of insects—and all the critical services they provide—is to be avoided, “society must take steps at all levels to protect, restore, and enhance habitat for these animals across all landscapes, from wildlands to farmlands to urban cores.” The review calls for broad pesticide reform, including a ban on cosmetic lawn pesticides. The authors reiterate the need for improved management of connected habitats to maximize biodiversity at all levels. As aquatic insects have been noted as most vulnerable, protecting and restoring aquatic habitat is noted as perhaps a more urgent focus. More specific policy recommendations include:

1. Nations, states, provinces, and cities
   • Strengthen pesticide regulations and ban cosmetic use.
   • Retail companies should have clear labels to warn about the impact on nontarget insects.
   • Sub-national policy to protect insects should be pushed before national or international agreements are achieved.
   • Strong incentives to protect, enhance, and restore habitat.
   • Proper funding for conservation and management of land.
   • Begin conservation efforts before species are on the brink of extinction.
   • Mitigate and sequester carbon emissions; promote clean energy.
   • Increase habitat connectivity.
2. Working (agricultural) lands
   • Incorporate conservation of beneficial insect biodiversity.
   • Move away from monocultures toward a mosaic of low water use, climate friendly crops that both provide nutrition and nectar resources to local pollinators/beneficial insects.
   • Change from conventional, chemical intensive agriculture to ecological intensification, regenerative farming, and agroecology.
   • Reduce the use of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Use integrated pest management (IPM).
   • Farmers should be rewarded, supported, and encouraged to make changes.
   • Higher diversity of hardy, pest-resilient plant species in manufactured foods.
3.  Natural Areas
   • Managers of natural areas, parks, roadsides and rights of way should include conservation of native insect diversity as a goal.
   • Incorporate science/experts into management by working with university researchers, nonprofits, and community scientists.
   • Maximize native floral resources and practices that maximize benefits to insect diversity.
   • Consider the impact of management on insects while planning.
   • Connect habitats
4. Gardens, homes, and other private property
   • “Even small patches of habitat are important” – small areas in urban/suburban yard and parks, including parking strips, can be managed to benefit insects and allow for movement of species across landscapes.
   • Eliminate or minimize pesticide use.
   • Purchasing food grown using organic or sustainable methods helps foster change in the agricultural sector.
   • Advocate to encourage government bodies to protect and restore parks, natural areas, and local waterbodies.

Beyond Pesticides believes that “reducing” the use of toxic pesticides is a middle ground move that is inadequate to the crises we face. The success of organic agriculture proves that these chemicals are unnecessary to food production. Organic lawn and landscape management can create verdant green space on par with any chemical-intensive property.

There is still time to change our trajectory. More than ever, individuals must connect with their local, state, and federal elected officials and demand changes that protect pollinators and other insect populations. As evidenced by Connecticut and Maryland, and dozens of local pollinator protection policies, concerted efforts by grassroots advocates can create lasting positive change.

For more information on how to get active in you state or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective web page or give the office a call at 202-543-5450.

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

Source: Conservation Science and Practice

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2019)  “We were drooling excessively. My eyes would not stop watering,” Kaylynn Knull said to Denver ABC7, after she and her boyfriend filed suit against a Dominican Republic resort they claimed poisoned them with toxic pesticides. This year, the same resort, the Grand Bajia Principe, has had three Americans die on its premises. This is not the first time an island resort has been implicated in improper, potentially illegal pesticide use. In 2015, a family of four was poisoned by Terminix after the highly toxic fumigant methyl bromide was applied in a nearby room seeped in while they slept.

Ms. Knull told ABC7 that the couple’s symptoms began after rejecting a time share offer at the resort. “As soon as we came back to the room, we noticed it smelled like somebody had dumped paint everywhere. I was having the worst intestinal cramping I have ever experienced. It felt like a chainsaw going through my gut.” The couple booked the first flight off the island, and went to a doctor, who diagnosed them with “Likely Organophosphate poisoning.”

Organophosphates are acutely toxic insecticides that bind to and block the transmission of the acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme important to the proper functioning of our nerves. Blocking this enzyme causes a build-up of acetylcholine, which results in a range of symptoms, including diarrhea, dizziness, urination, headache, excessive salivation, and muscle twitches, as well as potentially more-serious ones, including respiratory muscle paralysis, seizures, respiratory failure, coma, and death. Late last year, a group of leading scientists called for a complete worldwide ban on organophosphates.

Recent reports of Americans dying under questionable circumstances in the same resort led Kaylynn to launch the lawsuit. “Because I honestly believe the truth needs to be told. This sounds way too similar at the same resort. I don’t know, I can’t keep my mouth shut,” she told ABC7.

The resort has released statements indicating that no recent deaths are connected. There are outstanding toxicology report being investigated by the CDC.

If the incidents do confirm pesticide poisoning, it would be another unfortunate, avoidable pesticide tragedy in the Caribbean. After the family in St John was poisoned by Terminix, the company was ordered to pay a $10 million criminal fine. And in April of last year, the applicator in the incident, Jose Rivera, was indicted by a federal grand jury for illegally applying methyl bromide in residential areas.

In countries like the Dominican Republic, not subject to U.S. pesticide laws and regulations, pesticide licensing and applicator training may not have the same level of oversight. According to the World Health Organization, pesticide poisoning incidents within the general population in developing countries is nearly double those recorded among U.S. farmers.

Before you stay at a resort, ask questions about their pest management practices, and consider alternative accommodations if you are not satisfied with the response. If you think you’re being poisoned, get to fresh air immediately and contact authorities. See Beyond Pesticides website for what to do in a pesticide emergency.

All cosmetic, landscape pesticide use is simply unnecessary. For most every pest problem, there are cultural practices and non or least-toxic alternatives that can effectively address pests. Start by building healthy soil through natural composts and fertilizers, and adjusting nutrients based on a soil test. When pest problems arise, currently identify the pest, monitor and set action levels so that infestations can be prevented. Find safer management techniques for a range of pests through Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage.

Source: Denver ABC7

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2019) A study finds that the interaction of a common honey bee parasite with neonicotinoid insecticides causes 70% reductions in overwintering honey bee survival. These results help to explain the unsustainable honey bee colony losses observed in recent decades.

Neonicotinoids (neonics) are a class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects. Studies show that neonicotinic residues accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants, and, given their widespread use and known toxic effects, there is major concern that neonics play a major contributing role in pollinator declines.

In the early 2000s, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) brought national attention to increased honey bee colony losses. During the same period that CCD and colony losses spiked, neonic prevalence skyrocketed, in large part due to the introduction of seed-delivered technologies. As of 2011, 34-44% of soybeans and 79-100% of maize hectares were preemptively treated with neonics. While CCD prevalence has decreased, colony loss rates (and systemic insecticide use) remain high. A 2018 national survey indicates that U.S. beekeepers currently experience an average annual colony mortality rate of 30.7%, double the pre-CCD baseline of 15% losses.

In the present study, researchers at the University of Bern underwent an investigation into potential mechanisms for these unprecedented and continued high colony losses. Specifically, the study authors sought to better understand the hazards wrought by co-exposures to the common parasitic mite, Varroa destructor, and ubiquitous systemic neonicotinoid insecticides. Using field-relevant concentrations of frequently occurring neonicotinoids, scientists exposed experimental honey bee colonies to the insecticides for a period of 42 days in the spring, when bees typically experience the highest pesticide exposures. Since most managed honey bee colonies are already co-habited by V. destructor, the scientists did not have to manipulate infestation. Instead, researchers looked for differences in response to neonicotinoid exposure depending on individual bees’ status – whether or not they were harboring mites – which varied naturally among individuals in each colony.

The authors were not only interested in observing immediate effects, but also in uncovering how this common combination might contribute to changes in long-term survival, of individuals and ultimately of whole colonies. To investigate long-term effects, researchers continued to monitor bees through the autumn following exposure, to capture effects on emerging winter bees.

What authors found validated their attention to long-term, co-exposure impacts. While neonicotinoid treatment alone did not produce a strong effect on worker body mass or survival, when combined with V. destructor parasitism, neonicotinoids did cause significantly reduced body weight and survival, compared to sole exposure to either stressor. However, these effects were not as pronounced in the summer immediately following spring exposure as they were in the autumn, when winter bees are reared. By the time autumn collections were completed, combined exposure to neonicotinoids and V. destructor were found to cause an astounding 70% reduction in survival, significantly surpassing the effects of either exposure alone. These results have strong implications for overall colony survival.

Honey bees born in the winter typically live longer than those born in the spring, and this longer-term survival is critical to the survival of the entire colony through to the next spring season. The majority of honey bee colony losses occur during this period of overwintering, when colonies are exposed to stressors that require a large population to buffer against. Colonies must have a strong population and sufficient stores of honey to survive the winter. When temperatures drop below the colony’s comfort zone, they rely on the vibration of thousands of clustered bee bodies to keep the hive temperature warm enough to survive. At the colony scale, the survival effects uncovered in the present study would destabilize these natural mechanisms for winter survival of the whole collective body.

Neonicotinoids by themselves already present an unacceptable hazard to bees. Multiple studies have confirmed that the levels of neonicotinoid pesticides that bees encounter in the environment are toxic enough to impair foraging, navigational, and learning behaviors, as well as suppress immune responses. These individual impacts are compounded at the level of social colonies, weakening collective resistance to common parasites, pathogens other pesticides, and thus leading to colony losses and mass population declines. In 2018, more than two hundred scientists co-authored a “Call to restrict neonicotinoids” on the basis of the bulk of evidence implicating neonicotinoids in mass pollinator and beneficial insect declines.

Native pollinators are similarly threatened by increased use of systemic insecticides. Recent studies of wild and managed pollinators in the field have shown significant colony and population declines as a direct result of neonicotinoid crop treatment and intensified pesticide use. A 2008-2013 study of wild bee populations across various land types in the US found the greatest declines in regions of concentrated corn production, concomitant with the tripling of neonicotinoid use in maize. Wild bee populations are declining by more than 30% in the US corn-belt, where neonicotinoid use is by now ubiquitous. A 23% decline in California butterfly species documented over the last few decades began sharply following the introduction of neonicotinoids to the state in 1995.

These newest findings add to the litany of harms wrought by neonicotinoids and other systemic insecticides, and help to explain the mass colony losses that began just as neonicotinoids came to prevalence. Beyond Pesticides holds the position that nothing short of a complete transformation to organic, least-toxic practices can begin to reverse the damage wrought by decades of unchecked poisoning. Stay abreast of new public health findings by reading Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. Join the movement to end destructive pesticide use by engaging at the local, state and federal levels to transform our agricultural system.

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

Source: Nature

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2019) During “Pollinator Week,” last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency betrayed its responsibility to protect the environment and approved “emergency” uses of sulfoxaflor, a bee-toxic insecticide, in 11 states on millions of acres of crops that are attractive to bees. Sulfoxaflor is functionally identical to the neonicotinoid class of systemic pesticides, which are readily absorbed and translocated into the plant tissues, including its pollen and nectar. These insecticides are substantial contributors to the dramatic decline of pollinators and what is now recognized as a global insect apocalypse.

Ask Your Elected Members of Congress to Tell EPA that Its Actions Are Unacceptable and Must Be Reversed

In 2015, beekeepers sued to suspend the use of sulfoxaflor. A year later, in 2016, the chemical’s registration was amended with the specific exclusion of crops such as cotton and sorghum that attract bees, essentially acting as an aromatic draw to poison. However, EPA regularly utilizes the “emergency exemption” rule under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to circumvent these restrictions.

The Center for Biological Diversity reports, “Ten of the 11 states have been granted the approvals for at least four consecutive years for the same ’emergency.’ Five have been given approvals for at least six consecutive years.”

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has recognized the broad misuse of Section 18. A 2018 report from OIG notes that EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards.” Section 18 is intended to be utilized for unanticipated, urgent, and short-lived pest situations. Instead, it is harnessed as an effective, chronic workaround to introduce a pesticide on the market without FIFRA registration and appropriate restrictions on use.

Ask Your Elected Members of Congress to Tell EPA that Its Actions Are Unacceptable and Must Be Reversed

We cannot allow those we elect to Congress to remain silent as the crisis of the “insect apocalypse” advances at an escalating rate.

Letter to Congress

As our nation last week recognized “Pollinator Week”—a collective effort to focus on creatures vital to our environment and food systems—EPA was approving the use of the systemic pollinator poison sulfoxaflor that the court had previously decided was too dangerous for bees. I ask you to tell EPA that its decision to allow the “emergency use” of bee-toxic pesticides is unacceptable and contributes to the escalating insect apocalypse, as documented in the scientific literature. The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has recognized the broad misuse of Section 18. A 2018 report from OIG notes that EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards.” Section 18 is intended to be utilized for unanticipated, urgent, and short-lived pest situations. Instead, it is harnessed as an effective, chronic workaround to introduce a pesticide on the market without FIFRA registration and appropriate restrictions on use.

Thus, it is not surprising that, as reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, “Ten of the 11 states have been granted the approvals for at least four consecutive years for the same ‘emergency.’ Five have been given approvals for at least six consecutive years.”

Congressional oversight is needed to ensure that EPA fulfills its responsibility to completely review the health and environmental impacts of pesticides before allowing them to be used.

Please tell EPA that its decision to allow the “emergency use” of bee-toxic pesticides is unacceptable and must be rescinded.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2019) As Pollinator Week 2019 comes to a close, Beyond Pesticides is encouraging individuals to take steps in their backyard and community to Bee Protective of pollinator populations. The situation for pollinators and the insect word is dire, but there are a range of activities that can be taken in both the short and long term to shore up populations where you live. If you’re working towards positive change on pollinators, or simply want to know more about how to get involved, join the Pollinator Week #ProtectPollinators twitter chat today at 12 noon ET.

ManageSafe

Pest problems are a part of everyday life. But the first step in addressing them should never be reaching for a hazardous pesticide. To protect you and your family from pests while also protecting pollinators visit Beyond Pesticides Managesafe website.  Start by selecting the location of your pest problem – whether indoors or out, and click through to choose the pest in question. If the pest problem you’re dealing with isn’t listed there, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] for one on one assistance.

One of the biggest impacts we can make for the health of pollinators is to forgo the use of systemic insecticides in favor non-toxic and least toxic practices. Even after the European Union banned systemic neonicotinoids, studies found that pesticide use in suburban areas posed a high risk environment for pollinators. So rest assured, your extra efforts in seeking out safer pest management options will make a big difference in protecting bees and other pollinators.

Grow a Pollinator-Friendly Garden

Pollinators need diverse sources of pollen and nectar in order to maintain hive strength. Of course it’s also important that these sources be free of pollinator-toxic chemicals. For ideas on what you can plant to attract pollinators in your region of the country, see the Bee Protective Habitat Guide. And for sources of seeds and starts that aren’t pre-treated with toxic pesticides, see the Pollinator-Friendly Seed and Nursery Directory. And now, if you’re in the state of Minnesota, a bill recently signed by Governor Walz will reimburse homeowners up to 75% of the cost of converting a grass lawn to a diverse, flowering pollinator habitat.

Become a Backyard Beekeeper

If you’ve got a pesticide-free yard and garden, and the space to do it, consider taking the next step and becoming a backyard beekeeper. If you’re overwhelmed by the idea, consider partnering with a local beekeeper and hiring them to maintain your hive, either long term or until you’re comfortable with caretaking. You can also connect with national or state beekeeping organizations. See here for resources that cover most areas of the country. Some states have incentive programs in place to help upstart beekeepers. In Virginia, the Beehive Distribution Program will provide beehive equipment directly to eligible beekeepers (and begins accepting applications July 1, 2019).

Get Active in Your Community

Protecting pollinators in your home is a great step –and as you get more and more neighbors you to follow your lead, the benefits to pollinators and the environment will grow exponentially. Take it from the City of Amsterdam. An analysis of the City’s pollinator survey found that after the implementation of initiatives banning bee-toxic pesticides and planting native, pollinator-friendly flowers, at a time when insect populations are declining across the globe, the City saw an increase of 21 different bee species. These bees were not recorded in counts as recent as 1998, indicating that it is possible to grow and expand pollinator populations within a relatively short period of time.

For assistance in getting active in the protection of pollinators, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected]. Thank you to all who are working to protect pollinators during this special week.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2019) To mark National Pollinator Week (June 17-23), more than 10,000 people across the country are joining to demand that Kroger (NYSE: KR) help stop the extreme decline of pollinators. Customers are delivering letters to stores asking the nation’s largest conventional grocery store to eliminate pollinator-toxic pesticides from its food supply chain and increase domestic organic food offerings to help stop the catastrophic decline of pollinators and other insects.

Pollinators and other insects could go extinct within a century, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems,” the first comprehensive global meta-analysis of insect decline states. This is largely due to the widespread use of neonicotinoids and other toxic insecticides in industrial agriculture.

“Systemic neonicotinoid insecticides and the broad range of pesticides that harm people and pollinators have no place in our food supply,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides. “Kroger customers are asking the company to be part of the solution to the pollinator crisis by eliminating hazardous pesticides and expanding organic options.”

“To avoid the ‘bee apocalypse’ it is critical that Kroger immediately commit to stop selling food with pollinator-toxic pesticides,” said Tiffany Finck-Haynes, pesticides and pollinators program manager at Friends of the Earth. “Kroger’s food supply chain is at risk if it does not take immediate action.”

Kroger lags behind its competitors on pesticide reduction. Costco updated its pesticide policy to encourage suppliers of fruits, vegetables and garden plants to phase out the use of chlorpyrifos and neonicotinoids, which will reduce farmworker and pollinator exposure.

“We ask Kroger to show leadership in corporate responsibility by adopting food safety policies that eliminate pesticides in the supply chain that are harmful to people and pollinators,” said Alexis Luckey, executive director, Toxic Free North Carolina.

In February, Friends of the Earth and allies released a report that found Kroger’s store-brand foods contain pollinator-toxic pesticides including glyphosate, organophosphates and neonicotinoids. A 2018 scorecard from Friends of the Earth found that most top food retailers, including Kroger, are failing to safeguard pollinators, like bees, and people from toxic pesticides.

“Bees and other pollinators are responsible for one out of three bites of food. By sourcing food grown with bee-killing pesticides, Kroger is threatening the future of food itself. It’s time for Kroger to protect pollinators by reducing pesticides in its supply chain,” said Katie Reilly, campaign manager at SumOfUs.

On average, beekeepers have lost 40 percent of their hives over the last decade and monarch butterflies have declined by more than 90 percent in under 20 years. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization published a report warning that the diminishing state of the world’s biodiversity jeopardizes our food security, nutrition, environment and more.

“Maryland beekeepers have lost an unsustainable 60% of hives in recent years. The unprecedented mass die-offs of pollinators and other insects, as well as the rise in cancer, neurological diseases and autism, are clear indicators that the chemical-intensive industrial food system and the poisons applied to our foods are anything but life-giving,” said Bonnie Raindrop, legislative chair of Central Maryland Beekeepers Association.

What you can do today to take part in pushing the largest grocery retailer to go organic and save pollinators:

1. Swarm the phone lines: Call Kroger at 800-576-4377. Ask them to stop selling produce grown with pollinator poisons and offer organic options instead.
2. Spread the buzz on social media – share messages such as:
   • @Kroger brand food is grown with toxic pesticides that are driving the insect apocalypse. Tell Kroger to #SaveTheBees & our food system by phasing out food with bee-killing pesticides!
   • Pollinators contribute more than 24 billion dollars to the US economy — and @Kroger has the power to save them from the brink of extinction. Tell Kroger to stop selling food with bee-killing pesticides and increase their organic offerings! #SaveTheBees
3. Deliver a letter in person to your local store.
   • Link to letter (Print and sign!)
   • Find a store near you
   • Ask to talk to a manager and tell your story! Explain why the need to protect pollinators matters to you as a customer and as a concerned citizen.

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

Source: Friends of the Earth

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2019) On June 17, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) once again approved “emergency” uses of sulfoxaflor, a bee-toxic insecticide, on millions of acres of crops that are attractive to bees. Sulfoxaflor is functionally identical to the neonicotinoid class of systemic pesticides, which are readily absorbed and translocated by the plant, including its pollen and nectar. These insecticides are substantial contributors to the dramatic decline of pollinators and what is now recognized as a global insect apocalypse.

In 2015, beekeepers sued to suspend the use of sulfoxaflor. A year later, in 2016 the chemical’s registration was amended with the specific exclusion of crops such as cotton and sorghum that attract bees, essentially acting as an aromatic draw to poison. EPA regularly utilizes the “emergency exemption” rule under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to circumvent these restrictions.

The Center for Biological Diversity reports, “Ten of the 11 states have been granted the approvals for at least four consecutive years for the same ‘emergency.’ Five have been given approvals for at least six consecutive years.”

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has recognized the broad misuse of Section 18. A 2018 report from OIG notes that EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards.” Section 18 is intended to be utilized for unanticipated, urgent, and short-lived pest situations. Instead, it is harnessed as an effective, chronic workaround FIFRA registration and appropriate limits of use.

As Beyond Pesticides promotes “Pollinator Week”—a collective effort to focus on creatures vital to our environment and food systems—it is disheartening to report this continued wrongdoing from the branch of government charged with protecting the environment.

“The Trump EPA is allowing potentially catastrophic harm to imperiled insect populations,” says Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s hard to imagine how much more evidence could possibly be needed for the agency to wake up to the damage they are causing.”

Section 18 is not the only loophole used as a vector for the use of toxic pesticides and the profit of big agrichemical companies.

Sulfoxaflor and neonicotinoids are used as a chemical spray, but they can also be applied as a seed coating that permeates the plant as it grows and causes indiscriminate poisoning. In March, Beyond Pesticides created an action regarding this topic, stating, “EPA is misusing a regulatory loophole—the ‘treated articles exemption’—to allow systemic insecticides to be used in mass quantities, without regulating or labeling them as required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA does not currently assess adverse effects on the environment and public health wrought by widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides delivered through seeds coated with the insecticides, resulting in widespread exposure to one of the most environmentally damaging classes of chemicals on the market.”

Spread the word about treated seeds and the impact of systemic insecticides by sharing Beyond Pesticides’ animated short Seeds that Poison. Further, you can tell your Congressional delegation to pressure EPA to close the “emergency” loophole in Section 18 and also fully regulate treated seeds.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity