(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2019) Research from Germany shows a steep decline of arthropod (insect and spider) populations in grasslands and forests. These data add to the growing body of evidence documenting an ongoing insect apocalypse. “Our study confirms that insect decline is real,” Author Sebastian Seibold, PhD, told BBC, “It might be even more widespread than previously thought considering, for example, that also forests are experiencing declines in insect populations.”

Researchers analyze data from standardized inventories of arthropod populations taken from 150 grassland sites and 140 forest sites across three regions of Germany sampled between 2008-2017. They found that, in grasslands, arthropod:

• Biomass declined by 67%
• Abundance declined by 78%
• Number of species declined by 34%

In forest sites, arthropod:

• Biomass declined by 41%
• Number of species declined by 36%
• Abundance had more complicated results

The paper’s abstract sums up, “Our results suggest that major drivers of arthropod decline act at larger spatial scales, and are (at least for grasslands) associated with agriculture at the landscape level. This implies that policies need to address the landscape scale to mitigate the negative effects of land-use practices.”

The scale of the insect crisis became clear after German researchers published a study in PLOS One that found, using 27 years of data largely collected by citizen scientists, overall insect biomass had declined by 75% over that timeframe. Other alarming studies followed, including a systematic review which warns that about half of insect populations worldwide are rapidly declining, and a third are headed toward extinction. Authors Drs. Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys put forth an ominous prediction that all insects will be killed off if current detrimental practices – especially chemical-intensive agriculture – continue.

Dr. Seibold notes, “I think it’s alarming to see that such a decline happens not only in intensively-managed areas but also in protected areas — so the sites that we think are safeguarding our biodiversity are not really working anymore.”

The loss of insects not only deprives the world of critical ecosystem services such as pollination, it also plays into the decimation of bird populations – declines of roughly 1/3 since 1970 – that have been recently been documented.

It’s clear that industrial agriculture is contributing to the insect apocalypse, as well as declines in birds and other yet unknown species. Yet we also know that, by eschewing pesticide use, focusing on soil health, diversification, and sustainable practices, organic and regenerative farming and land management can help reverse this decline. Join this effort by purchasing organic whenever possible, planting diverse pesticide-free habitat on your property, and encouraging your local community to follow suit. Initiatives in cities like Amsterdam, Netherlands show that this is an issue we can still address.

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

Source: Nature, BBC

(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2019) Current USDA regulations clearly state that after a dairy farmer takes advantage of a one-time exemption to convert an existing “distinct” herd to organic production—all animals brought onto the farm must have been managed organically from the last third of gestation—in the case of cows, from three months prior to birth.

However, USDA has interpreted the prohibition to mean that dairies could purchase animals, on an ongoing basis, who were born and raised on conventional dairies. These calves receive medicated milk replacer (formula laced with antibiotics) and, after weaning, are fed conventional GMO crops generally sprayed with Bayer/Monsanto’s Roundup.®

Now, as livestock factories are taking over a good share of the organic market and pushing family-scale farmers off the land, USDA has finally, only after being forced by Congress, written additional regulatory language intending to close a loophole created by USDA’s negligence.

Tell the USDA to follow the will of Congress and close its own loophole. The National Organic Program should enforce both the spirit and letter of the law.

Organic farmers are mandated to provide healthy living conditions where livestock can exhibit their natural instinctive behaviors. When they do that—and for dairy cattle, that means grazing on fresh grass—the cows are not pushed for damaging high milk production and live long healthy lives.

With the USDA permitting converted conventional cattle, it became quicker and cheaper to start giant industrial-scale dairies, some managing 20,000-head each, competitively damaging ethical organic family farmers.

Even worse, these livestock factories are primarily confining cattle in giant buildings or feedlots, pushing them for unhealthy high production with “hot rations.” This results in demonstrably more milk produced per cow, but comes at a grave cost to the animals, who end up living short, stressful, and unhealthy lives. Since organic standards prohibit the use of antibiotics to treat related illnesses, many of these animals are sent to an early slaughter.

Sign the petition and tell the USDA to follow the will of Congress and close its own loophole. The National Organic Program should enforce both the spirit and letter of the law.

We will be formally sending your petition, along with those of others, before the December 2 deadline.

Petition Letter
Sign the Petition: Comments Due to the USDA December 2

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public input on the Proposed Rule on the Origin of Livestock. I fully support the effort to close the “loopholes” that have allowed the continued practice of bringing conventional livestock on to organic farms. USDA’s actions have violated the spirit and letter of the organic law, allowing factory farm livestock operations to manage their herds using practices that are not sustainable and do not promote the health of their livestock.

However, the proposed new rule appears to create a new loophole that must be closed to prevent the ongoing abuse of the intent and spirit of organic law.

Specifically, please adopt the following changes:

The rule must require that any organic dairy farm selling organic animals be a functioning “commercial dairy” that is inspected and permitted by the state in which it operates. Furthermore, this dairy farm must have a relationship with a licensed milk handler shipping to a licensed dairy plant. In addition, this operation should be fully established, shipping milk for no less than 180 days, and any animal sold should be producing milk herself. This means that no young transitioned heifers, who have never been milked, could qualify for sale as “organic.”

As an alternative, as proposed by the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, should the National Organic Program seek a definitive solution to the potential loophole noted above, it could simply choose to ban, outright, the sale to an organic operation of any cattle that had been transitioned from conventional production to organic production.

The final rule should close the loophole for breeding stock by creating additional safeguards that would prevent rotating animals in and out of organic production and only allow periodic and limited editions for genetic diversity (prohibiting the practice of converting first litter sows to organic production on a continual basis).

Thank you for considering my comments on this important matter.

And finally, because of the long-term nature of this controversy there should be no phase-in to the new rule restrictions. Any conventional cattle that are in the process of being transitioned to organic should be allowed, regardless of the fact that it is considered by many to be illegitimate under the current regulations, to complete the process.

Allowing for a phase-in will cause a rush of conventional cattle to start the transition process to organic. This could cause a further exacerbation of the current glut of organic milk, crashing the price and shifting even more market share to the giant, industrial scale producers — driving additional farmers out of business.

Sincerely,

The undersigned

(Beyond Pesticides, November 8, 2019) A new report out from As You Sow — 2019 Pesticides in the Pantry: Transparency and Risk in Food Supply Chains — focuses on the risks that agricultural pesticide use represents for food manufacturers, and offers recommendations and benchmarks for improvement in the areas of management and transparency. The report concludes that companies typically have some sort of sustainable sourcing program within their supply chains, but that most of those “lack clear criteria,” and virtually none of them includes pesticide use as an indicator.

As an organization that works on shareholder advocacy to “harness shareholder power to create lasting change that benefits people, planet, and profit,” As You Sow is responding to investor and shareholder demand that companies reduce the presence of synthetic pesticide chemicals in their supply chains. No doubt this report has arisen indirectly from increased public, judicial, and media attention to the harms — to human and environmental health — of intensive pesticide use in conventional agriculture. Beyond Pesticides maintains that the real fix for the problem is a transition to organic and regenerative agriculture.

Highlights of the problem in the U.S. identified in the report include:

• more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually
• during the period of 2008–2012, $9 million was spent on agricultural pesticides
• according to the 2009 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, the agency’s biomonitoring program found pesticide residues in 90% of U.S. subjects studied; that level persisted at least through 2015, according to updated tables for the CDC report
• these facts, combined with the harms pesticides cause, put food corporations at legal and reputational risk

Additionally, the report points to the human health and environmental harms, and economic costs, related to agricultural pesticide use. It identifies connections between pesticide exposures and neurodevelopmental, endocrine, reproductive, renal, hepatic, and cardiovascular disorders, as well as links with obesity, diabetes, and cancer. It notes the increased risks of exposure for people who live, work, attend school, and/or play near areas of heavy pesticide use. The report identifies impacts on biodiversity, endangered species, and soil’s climate resiliency services (its carbon-capturing-and-holding abilities, in particular).

To its credit, Pesticides in the Pantry, which is unusually reader-friendly, also acknowledges that the environmental costs of pesticides impact agroeconomics. It offers economic metrics related to biodiversity, and especially pollinator, loss, for example: “Healthy pollinator species are necessary for the production of 87 of the top 115 global food crops, an estimated 35% of all global food production. Losing pollinators could mean losing their contribution of more than $24 billion to the U.S. economy.”

The report addresses points that Beyond Pesticides has made over the years: that pesticides’ actual utility is both inflated and severely limited, given the issue of resistance. Pesticides in the Pantry notes that chemically intensive agriculture is, fundamentally, an exercise in entropy: “Over time, as resistance develops, more intense and more frequent applications of the pesticide are required to eliminate the pest, until eventually the pesticide provides little or no effective pest control, and a new, potentially more potent chemical must take its place.” Crop losses due to pesticide resistance cost $1.4 billion each year in the U.S. Increased costs of pesticides (and the genetically engineered seeds with which some of them are paired), caused in part by consolidation in the agrochemical industry, further challenge profit margins for farms — especially small- and mid-sized operations.

The report goes on to say that increasing rates of farm delinquency and bankruptcy are contributing to the financial instability of the sector, and that reduced pesticide use offers one bulwark against such instability. It notes, “Researchers have found farmers are able to reduce pesticide use significantly, without sacrificing productivity. One study found that farmers of pesticide-free, regenerative operations had 78% higher profits than their conventional counterparts, and reduced insect pest populations tenfold. The ability to raise food profitably, without massive pesticide dependence, is underscored by a United Nations’ human rights report that outwardly denounces the ‘myth’ that pesticides are necessary to feed the world’s growing population.”

The authors of Pesticides in the Pantry, Christy Spees and Danielle Fugere, identify 30 “performance indicators” that aimed to measure company efficacy at managing risk and acting on stakeholder interests. The risk management arena included, e.g., “robust strategies for the reduction of toxic pesticides and meaningful metrics for tracking performance and progress.” They then administered a questionnaire (see Results section) to 14 large food corporations,* which asked about policies, goals, targets, tracking, and outcome metrics, as well as about sustainable sourcing, and the presence, nature, and metrics of any regenerative agriculture programs they might maintain.

On the basis of responses to the survey, the researchers developed a first-ever (2019) scorecard for each corporation. As they note, “In this inaugural year of benchmarking and reporting, companies’ average scores were relatively low.” On a scale of 0–30 (with 30 representing the best possible outcome) only General Mills and PepsiCo scored above single digits, with 18 and 14, respectively.

Although three of the companies do explicitly address the issue of reducing the use of pesticides in their supply chains, most “do not currently provide goals, strategies, or targets for the reduction of pesticide use.” Roughly half of the companies have an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) program, but only one (Del Monte) sets out the reduction of synthetic pesticide use a goal.

Other dismal results from the survey were: not one of the companies has a supplier standard for glyphosate-based herbicides, and only Kellogg’s does any tracking of suppliers’ use of glyphosate; General Mills alone has a regenerative agriculture program of any kind; none of the companies has a crop-specific, sustainable sourcing program (e.g., for palm oil, a ubiquitous ingredient in processed foods); only General Mills and Mondelez require suppliers to provide quantitative data about their pesticide use; and only Lamb Weston has a specific, time-bound goal or target of reducing pesticide use in its supply chain.

The report connects the dots for food corporations: “The environmental damage caused by pesticides creates significant operational risk to food companies. Crop supply chains reliant on heavy use of pesticides may be damaged by loss of pollinator species, degraded soil, and pesticide resistance. To ensure long-term supply reliability, especially in the face of climate-change related impacts that make growing food more difficult, it is imperative that food companies mitigate these risks now by moving supplier farms toward sustainable pest management practices which reduce chemical inputs.”

The report does point to some “notable practices” by some companies, citing:

• Unilever’s Global Guidelines on Use of Pesticides in Sustainable Tea Sourcing, which identifies both reduction targets and time frames
• General Mills’ compilation of the most comprehensive set of metrics on pesticide use among the companies reviewed — identifying specific measurements to be taken and when, committing to annual reporting, and providing technical support to farmers for data collection
• Nestlé’s Responsible Sourcing Standard, which the authors describe as “comprehensive,” and which requires full supplier compliance, no use of prophylactic use of pesticides, and no use of “chemicals of concern” (including those identified by the Stockholm Convention and the Rotterdam Convention, and Class 1a and 1b pesticides identified by the United Nations’ World Health Organization, i.e., those characterized by their known or presumed carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and/or reproductive toxicity)

Pesticides in the Pantry acknowledges strides that some corporate entities have made in the areas of reducing deforestation, water use, and energy use and sourcing (resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions). It aims right at its corporate “targets” when it declares, “The total costs to human health and the environment from pesticides, coupled with the financial costs to farmers of maintaining a system with high input needs, suggest that food companies can benefit from supporting farmers in shifting away from conventional methods of pesticide-dependent farming.”

The near-absence of initiatives addressing reductions of pesticide use puts companies at significant legal liability, regulatory, and reputational risk, the authors maintain. With huge swaths of the public concerned about “chemical invasion” of the environment, food, and human bodies, high-profile lawsuits against chemical companies for pesticide harms, and regular media attention to pesticide residues found in consumer food products, food companies would do well to look to their supply chains. The report concludes that companies should establish corporate sustainability commitments that address pesticides by identifying reduction targets, clearly defining expectations, and measuring and evaluating progress. A useful addition to that list might be actual consequences for failure to meet requirements, targets, and expectations.

Pesticides in the Pantry identifies organic agriculture, regenerative agriculture, and IPM (Integrated Pest Management) as specific solutions that companies should pursue in their supplier chains. On that last: the authors do acknowledge that there is no standardized definition of IPM, and that any references to it in corporate policies should be accompanied by very specific goals, requirements, and metrics. Food corporations would do well to reform their supply-chain practices by sourcing organic ingredients for their products, and to support farmer-suppliers in transitioning to organic production. They ought also to advance the growth of regenerative agriculture, which can vastly improve soil health, increase biodiversity, mitigate some impacts of the warming climate and its sequelae, and improve farmer profitability.

The report’s conclusion says, “The problems of pesticide use raise risks from litigation on health and environmental damages, to changing consumer demands for healthy foods and reputational loss, to increasingly less effective crop production, especially in the face of climate change. . . . Given the myriad risks the use of pesticides creates for the environment, public health, consumers, and corporations, it is time for investors to amplify solutions that promote long-term sustainability. Agricultural supply chains will face increasing challenges as the impacts of climate change continue to unfold; it is critical that companies that rely on these supply chains take action now to prepare for these challenges and mitigate risk. This scorecard provides suggestions for meaningful corporate action to reduce pesticide use in agricultural supply chains. By taking steps to shift the food system away from toxic chemicals and towards practices which promote healthy soil, biodiversity, and farmer resilience, corporations have an opportunity to live up to their responsibility to all stakeholders, protect themselves from litigation and regulatory risk, and gain the trust of consumers and the public.”

Pesticides in the Pantry recommends that:

• investors and shareholders push corporations toward robust pesticide-reduction strategies
• corporations commit to: reducing pesticide use in their supply chains, noting that prioritizing core ingredient corps is a smart first step; employ great specificity in goals, requirements, and outcomes; triage pesticide reduction focus, identifying the highest-risk compounds as the most urgent to reduce; and invest in agricultural practices that eliminate chemical pesticide use and improve the health of soil (such as regenerative, organic agriculture)

This peek into the supply chains of giant food companies provided by Pesticides in the Pantry offers some takeaways for the consumer. One might certainly be to avoid processed foods; but in addition, those who have investments in large food companies can exercise their shareholder influence on corporate practices related to pesticides in the food supply. Supporting organic production is another important way to voice both objection to chemically laden food and the desire for its opposite. Through its Daily News Blog, Beyond Pesticides covers not only the problems of pesticides, but also, the solutions on the path to a less-toxic world.

* Those companies include: B&G Foods, Campbell’s, ConAgra, Del Monte, General Mills, Hain Celestial, J.M. Smucker, Kellogg’s, Kraft Heinz, Lamb Weston, Mondelez International, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Post.

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

Sources: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59a706d4f5e2319b70240ef9/t/5dc0996c789a43074732bb2c/1572903283537/PesticideInThePantry2019_04_FIN.pdf and https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/2019-pesticides-pantry-transparency-risk-food-supply-chains

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2018) A former employee of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board claims that other staff members misused and disposed of pesticides in protected areas next to Lake Harriet. The controversy comes at a pivotal moment for Minneapolis, as Minneapolis Public School District and the Park and Recreation Board are beginning a demonstration organic land management project on a number of properties. Advocates are pushing for organic land management as an alternative to chemical-intensive practices.

Minneapolis gardener Angee Ohmah Siegal says she was at the Lyndale Park Peace Garden when she saw parks staff spraying herbicides on a windy day. According to Russ Henry, a local advocate who she told her story to, Siegal had to head to the hospital due to “uncontrollable vomiting.” What more, Siegal claims that the same employees would dump unused or leftover pesticides into a pond beside the Roberts Bird Sanctuary.

Mr. Henry and Ms. Siegal issued their complaint with Park Board commissioners on October 2, carrying a large poster of a mutated frog with six legs that Ms. Siegal says she had photographed near the area. Commissioners are investigating further into the allegations but say they need more specific evidence.

Volunteers from Roberts Bird Sanctuary, Stephen Greenfield and Constance Pepin, told the Minneapolis StarTribune that Ms. Seigel’s claims are “plausible.” They support a third-party investigation. Ms. Pepin said, “Even if this wasn’t done intentionally, accidents happen and they harm the wildlife in the sanctuary. We need to be building up the soil and having … healthy populations of insects and birds as part of a healthy ecosystem. Pesticides don’t have a place in that.”

Last year, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board ended the use of glyphosate (RoundUp) and created a pesticide advisory committee to inform reductions in the use of toxic pesticides. As the organic land management demonstrations begin, local groups are hosting an event next Wednesday to inform the public more on this issue. BeeSafe Minneapolis, Beyond Pesticides, Stonyfield Organic, and other groups are hosting a screening of the documentary Ground War.

Ground War is a filmmaker’s investigation into the death of his father that takes him deep into the world of golf, chemical lobbying, and citizen activism, where he learns that the rampant use of pesticides around the world may be far more damaging than he thought. The film is particularly timely with public controversy about the use of glyphosate and three lawsuits with multimillion-dollar jury verdicts since last year for compensation and punitive damages against its manufacturer, Monsanto (Bayer)—while thousands of lawsuits are pending. All of this widespread pesticide exposure is taking place in the face of inaction by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and headlines pointing to officials sidestepping the law.

The film screening and panel discussion provides an opportunity to educate the community on the critical importance of organic land management to public health and the reversal of dramatic environmental declines associated with climate change and rapid biodiversity decline. Since the film includes interviews with local people that have been successful and concludes on an organic golf course, it frames the opportunities for success.

Those in Minneapolis-Saint Paul and surrounding communities can join Beyond Pesticides, BeeSafe Minneapolis, Filmmaker Andrew Nisker, Organic Consumers Association, Minnehaha Falls Landscaping, Birchwood Café, and Humming for Bees on Monday, November 11 at 6:30pm at the Riverview Theater (3800 42^nd Ave S). See the flyer here and RSVP on Eventbrite.

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

Source: Minneapolis StarTribune

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2019) Between 1981 and 1992, Japanese fishers annually reaped an average of 240 tons of smelt from Lake Shinji. After 1993, their nets turned up about 22 tons – a 90% drop in their yield. Eel catches dropped by 74%. New research, published in the journal Science, implicates the introduction of neonicotinoids to the abutting watershed in the decimation of these aquatic populations, stating, “In Lake Shinji, neonicotinoids indirectly reduced fishery yields by decreasing the abundance of invertebrates that serve as food for smelt and eels.”

Researchers analyzed decades of data on zooplankton, midges, and water quality as well as annual fishery yields of eel and smelt spanning from 1981-2014. Zooplankton biomass, an important fodder for smelt, plummeted from 108 µg C L⁻¹ to 18.2 µg C L⁻¹ after imidacloprid was introduced for use on rice paddies in May of 1993. Midges (Cyathura muromiensis) that were found in abundance in 1982 totally disappeared from all sample sites by 2016. While the smelt and eel populations drastically declined, the authors note that icefish, which eat a more diversified diet, were not impacted. Though researchers considered the possibilities of other influencing factors such as invasive species, hypoxia, and changes in fish stocking, they did not relate to the observations.

“This study, although observational, presents compelling evidence,” Professor Olaf Jensen, PhD of Rutgers University, a scientist unaffiliated with the study, told The Guardian, “A fishery that was sustainable for decades collapsed within a year after farmers began using neonicotinoids. This is a large and astoundingly fast response.”

This research provides yet another illustration of how pesticides cause ripple effects through ecosystem structures; an ecological phenomenon known as a trophic cascade. Drew Toher of Beyond Pesticides notes in “Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem” that, “In both still and fast-moving aquatic environments, pesticides act powerfully on the foundational levels of the food web.”

Trophic cascades are not limited to aquatic environments, of course. As an avian example, French researchers recently pointed to the decline of insects (estimated at about -80%) as the main cause for the dramatic collapse of bird species in their countryside over the last decade – declines measured at over a third, and in some cases two-thirds.

Rachel Carson sparked monumental change in the 1960’s as she called out the role of toxic pesticides in ecosystem collapse with her seminal work, Silent Spring. Despite the positive influence her work had on illuminating the problem of environmental contaminants, her ominous predictions are being invoked in observational research. Yamamuro et al. end their paper with a reference to Carson, “She wrote: ‘These sprays, dusts and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests and homes – nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams.’ The ecological and economic impact of neonicotinoids on the inland waters of Japan confirms Carson’s prophecy.”

There is plenty of evidence that toxic pesticides are causing cascading crises and plunging us into a future devoid of the richness that unpolluted ecosystems offer. We stand, as Carson once said, at a crossroad. Beyond Pesticides continues to advocate for organic farming as a healthy and economically viable alternative for people and the planet. While chemical-intensive agriculture is currently a major driver of biodiversity loss worldwide, organic practices can, conversely, bolster wild populations.

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

Source: Science

(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2019) Herbicide use is associated with an increased risk of developing cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, according to a meta-analysis published last month in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. For those working on farms and in other occupations with frequent exposure to herbicides, the risk is another in a long list of pesticide-induced diseases. Ultimately, researchers suggest, “A precautionary public health safety policy that includes preventive individual counselling and surveillance to workers exposed to pesticides may be advisable.”

Authors of the study conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on pesticide exposure and skin cancer, finding nine acceptable studies for analysis. These studies represent nearly 185,000 individuals, and included enough data to make a risk estimate and determine 95% confidence intervals. Although pesticides and insecticides in general were not associated with increased risk of skin cancer, general use of herbicides was (relative risk 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.36). Spouses whose partners work as pesticide applicators are also found to be at higher risk of developing cutaneous melanoma.

As skin cancer has increased significantly over the past 50 years, many appropriately point to the link between sun exposure and development of the disease. However, this research indicates that contact exposure to herbicides may be affecting risk. The authors point to studies finding links between skin adsorption of pesticides and exposure to UV radiation, as well as research that finds sunscreen itself may facilitate skin adsorption of pesticide residue.

A precautionary approach to this data would include a response from regulatory agencies that limits herbicide exposure to high risk populations like farmworkers and their families, or in the least increase monitoring of these individuals for skin cancer development. However, as recently as this month, the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved to roll back protections for farmworkers health. EPA is significantly shrinking Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs), buffer areas where individuals are not supposed to enter during a pesticide application.

Under the agency’s new rules, on-farm family members would be exempt from all aspects of the AEZ. EPA says this will allow farmers and their family “to decide whether to stay in their homes or …on their property during certain pesticide applications, rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining.”

Critics argue that it is the role of health and environmental regulatory agencies to promote precautionary actions among at risk individuals. In this sense, asking individuals without medical training or expertise to determine whether exposure to a toxic chemical is safe for them is a dereliction of EPA’s duty to protect public health.

Herbicide exposure is linked to a long list of health effects, which are documented in Beyond Pesticides Pesticide- Induced Diseases Database. The peer-reviewed research cited in the database reveals elevated rates of chronic diseases among individuals exposed to pesticides, with increasing numbers of studies associated with both specific illnesses and a range of illnesses. Some of these diseases are at very high and, perhaps, epidemic proportions, indicating an urgent need for public policy at all levels–local, state, and national—to end dependency on toxic pesticides and replace their use with sustainable, organic practices.

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

Source: Dermatology Advisor, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

(Beyond Pesticides, November 4, 2019) In recognition of the harm that climate change is causing to communities, the U.S. House of Representatives formed the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis to “investigate, study, make findings, and develop recommendations on policies, strategies, and innovations to achieve substantial and permanent reductions in pollution and other activities that contribute to the climate crisis, which will honor our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet for future generations.”

Tell the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis to promote organic agriculture and land care.

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

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

The same advantages accrue to other land management systems, such as city parks and playgrounds.

The Committee is seeking input in the form of responses to 13 questions by November 22. Among them are the following:

Cross-Cutting Policies Innovation (5a.) Where should Congress focus an innovation agenda for climate solutions? Please identify specific areas for federal investment and, where possible, recommend the scale of investment needed to achieve results in research, development and deployment.

Agriculture (6.) What policies should Congress adopt to reduce carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions and maximize carbon storage in agriculture? (7.) What policies should Congress adopt to help farmers, ranchers, and natural resource managers adapt to the impacts of climate change?

Oceans, Forestry and Public Lands (8.) How should Congress update the laws governing management of federal lands, forests, and oceans to accelerate climate adaptation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maximize carbon storage?

Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases (9.) What policies should Congress adopt to reduce emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, including methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases?

Carbon Removal (10.) How can Congress accelerate development and deployment of carbon removal technology to help achieve negative emissions?

Resilience and Adaptation (11.) What policies should Congress adopt to help communities become more resilient in response to climate change?

In order to promote organic management systems, the following actions are needed:

• Greater investment in research into organic production systems.One area that is particularly in need of research is organic no-till. Specifically, increase funding for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension (OREI) initiative to $50 million annually. We need to maintain, expand, and continually improve NRCS working lands programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program.
• Greater investment into the development of seeds and breeds that are well-adapted to local conditions.
• Expanding domestic organic production. Domestic demand for organic products exceeds domestic production. Organic producers face unique challenges and we need a comprehensive approachto increase production.
• Support for farmers making the transition to organic production. Support for the Organic Transitions Program is extremely important. We need to keep organic farmers on the land to ensure that we maintain soil carbon sequestration capacity. Maintain USDA programs, such as the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program, to protect farmland from development.
• Increased pasture-based livestock systems in agriculture research and marketing programs. Especially under intensive rotation and management, they can help increase carbon sequestration in the soil.
• Help for on-farm and community renewable energy systems.Locally-based, farm- and community-scale renewable energy systems not only reduce carbon emissions, but create a more resilient energy infrastructure.
• Removal of barriers to organic land management by local governments.It is essential to eliminate laws that preempt localities from regulating the use of pesticides.
• Protecting the integrity of organic products, so that the market can work to incentivize organic production. This includes ensuring that USDA does not stand in the way of essential reforms supported by the organic community.

These same actions address our biodiversity crisis that is evidenced by crashes in insect and bird populations.

Tell the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis to promote organic agriculture and land care.

Letter to the Select Committee

I wish to address several of the issues raised by the Committee for public comment, particularly questions 5a, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The following actions are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect biodiversity, and increase resilience in the face of climate change.

• Greater investment in research into organic production systems. One area that is particularly in need of research is organic no-till. Specifically, increase funding for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension (OREI) initiative to $50 million annually. We need to maintain, expand, and continually improve NRCS working lands programs, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program.
• Greater investment into the development of seeds and breeds that are well-adapted to local conditions.
• Expanding domestic organic production. Domestic demand for organic products exceeds domestic production. Organic producers face unique challenges and we need a comprehensive approach to increase production.
• Support for farmers making the transition to organic production. Support for the Organic Transitions Program is extremely important. We need to keep organic farmers on the land to ensure that we maintain soil carbon sequestration capacity. Maintain USDA programs, such as the Agriculture Conservation Easement Program, to protect farmland from development.
• Increased pasture-based livestock systems in agriculture research and marketing programs. Especially under intensive rotation and management, they can help increase carbon sequestration in the soil.
• Help for on-farm and community renewable energy systems. Locally-based, farm- and community-scale renewable energy systems not only reduce carbon emissions, but create a more resilient energy infrastructure.
• Removal of barriers to organic land management by local governments. It is essential to eliminate laws that preempt localities from regulating the use of pesticides.
• Protecting the integrity of organic products, so that the market can work to incentivize organic production. This includes ensuring that USDA does not stand in the way of essential reforms supported by the organic community.

Thank you for considering these suggestions.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2019) The recently published report Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Fiscal Year 2017 Pesticide Report, from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), provides data on the levels of pesticide residues that show up on the foods U.S. consumers eat. The report adds fuel to public concern about contamination of the food supply, and to discussion in the scientific and advocacy communities about what is and is not safe for human health. It is also a sobering reminder of just how much chemical-intensive agriculture depends on pesticides, whether insecticides, herbicides, or fungicides.

This FDA report has been prepared annually since 1987 and is based on the agency’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, which evaluates both domestically produced and imported human food samples, including fruit, vegetable, and animal products. As the report notes, “Three federal government agencies share responsibility for the regulation and oversight of pesticide chemical residues in or on food. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers (i.e., approves) the use of pesticides and establishes tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in or on food resulting from the use of the pesticides. Tolerances are the EPA-established maximum residue levels (MRLs) of a specific pesticide chemical that is permitted in or on a human or animal food in the United States. EPA also provides a strong U.S. preventive controls program by licensing pesticide applicators, conducting pesticide use inspections, and establishing and enforcing pesticide labeling provisions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces tolerances in both import foods and domestic foods shipped in interstate commerce, except for meat, poultry, catfish, and certain egg products for which the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible. FDA also monitors pesticide chemical residue levels in commodities representative of the U.S. diet by carrying out market basket surveys under the Total Diet Study (TDS).”

Among the unsavory metrics in the 2017 report — based on samples from California, New York, Texas, Kansas, and Wisconsin — are that pesticide residues were found in 84% of domestic fruits, 53% of vegetables, 42% of grains, and 73% of samples categorized as “other” (nuts, seeds, oils, honey, candy, beverages, spices, multi-ingredient products, and dietary supplements). Small percentages (less than 3%) of domestic grains, fruits, and “other” products had “violative” levels of residues — those that register above the tolerances set by EPA. However, nearly 10% of vegetables harbored violative levels of pesticide residues.

Levels of residues in specific U.S. commodities tested include, e.g.: 88% of apples and apple juice; 87% of grapes, grape juice, and raisins; 91% of lemons and lemon juice; 92.6% of nectarines and nectarine juice; 84% of strawberries; 87% of kale; 82% of spinach; 86.6% of cucumbers; and 80% of refined oils.

For imported goods, samples of which came from more than 40 countries (including Mexico, Canada, China, and India), outcomes were both better and worse. Residue levels on imported fruits (as a category) were found on 52.3% of samples, as compared with 84% on domestic fruit. Grains came in at 23% with pesticide residue, whereas in U.S. samples, that figure was nearly 42%. On the other hand, domestic dairy and eggs registered only a 4.7% residue rate, while imports came in at 33.3%. Inexplicably, the report lists no outcomes for domestically harvested fish, while imported fish without any pesticide residue logged in at a noteworthy 82.5% residue free.

Across all categories, violative levels of pesticide residue were 3.8% for domestic products and 10.4% for imported goods. Those figures are functions, primarily, of a high violative reading for domestic vegetables (9.4%), and for imports, of high readings for grains (14.1%), fruits (7.9%), vegetables (12.5%), and “other” (8.2%).

What are all these pesticides found in the food supply? Across 6,069 samples, 221 discrete pesticide compounds were detected, including six that had never previously been found via the FDA monitoring program. Also detected, in 34 samples, was the infamous and banned-since-1972 DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), which speaks to its long persistence in the environment and to its continued use in some parts of Africa, Asia, and South America.

Neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides were found across a multitude of samples; some of those include: imidacloprid (in 470 samples), thiamexotham (257), acetamiprid (206), clothianidin (145), and dinotefuran (45). Fungicides were found abundantly: boscalid (438), azoxystrobin (348), pyraclostrobin (293), fludioxonil (279), tebuconazole (253), and many others. Organophosphates were also well represented, e.g.: chlorpyrifos (265), malathion (191), phosmet (44), diazinon (38), and dichlorvos (22). To read more about any of these compounds visit Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.

Earlier in 2019, Friends of the Earth released a report — Toxic Secret — on pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply. Its more-narrow focus found that oat cereals, apples, applesauce, spinach, and pinto beans at four huge food retailers (Kroger, Walmart, Albertson’s, and Costco) contained residues of glyphosate, organophosphates, and neonicotinoids. As Beyond Pesticides reported, “The average level of glyphosate found in cereal samples (360 parts per billion) was more than twice the level set by scientists at Environmental Working Group for lifetime cancer risk for children. The average level of glyphosate found in pinto beans (509 ppb) was more than 4.5 times the benchmark.”

Remarkably, despite the presence of pesticides in so much of the food supply (as the FDA report shows), federal regulators continue to say, basically, “not to worry.” EPA maintains that as long as a residue registers under whatever the “tolerance” is for a particular compound, the pesticide does not pose significant risk to human health. There are several problems with this stance. One is that there is abundant evidence that pesticides do pose risks to human health, never mind to other organisms and the environment broadly. Another is that EPA’s methodologies for assessing risk are flawed and inadequate, as Beyond Pesticides has reported repeatedly.

Too, some tolerances have risen over time — not typically because of science, but because of industry pressure. As Cary Gillam reports for EcoWatch, “The EPA has approved several increases allowed for glyphosate residues in food, for instance. As well, the agency often makes the determination that it need not comply with a legal requirement that states the EPA ‘shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children’ in setting the legal levels for pesticide residues. The EPA has overridden that requirement in the setting of many pesticide tolerances, saying no such extra margin of safety is needed to protect children.” Of course, as tolerances climb, violative levels will be less frequently reported by FDA; and given the chemical industry’s influence on the administration and Congress, the greater the amounts of these chemical residues that will show up in the food supply.

The unholy, back-channel alliances between industry and regulatory agencies is old news, but it has become more robust since the advent of the Trump administration, which appears determined to advantage industry over human well-being by rolling back regulations, reducing enforcement of existing rules, and exploiting opportunities to diminish the role of science in regulation. Both the science community and the public are growing increasingly concerned with the saturation of the food supply with chemical inputs. The issue has gained greater visibility recently with well-publicized lawsuits brought against the makers of glyphosate-based herbicides.

Beyond Pesticides has monitored the pesticide “universe” for decades, reports on research and regulatory developments, and advocates for a transition to agricultural and other systems that don’t depend on toxic inputs. Stay current through the website, the Daily News Blog, and the journal, Pesticides and You, and consider becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides.

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

Sources: https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticides-fruits-vegetables-fda-health-2641133675.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 and https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticides-fruits-vegetables-fda-health-2641133675.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2019) Last week the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must assess the risk eight toxic pesticides pose to protected organisms: atrazine, carbaryl, methomyl, and simazine as well as rodenticides brodifacoum, bromadiolone, warfarin and zinc phosphide.

The plaintiffs, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) asserted that EPA and its then administrator Scott Pruitt violated duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by not consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service in registering these pesticides. The history of this case extends over 8 years. Last year, the court rejected EPA’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit.

According to CBD’s press release, “Under the agreement the agency must complete assessments of four pesticides, including atrazine, the nation’s second most-used pesticide, by 2021. Assessments of four rodenticides, including the widely used rat poison brodifacoum, must be finalized in 2024.”

Stephanie Parent, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said “This important step is only the start. We still have work to do to make sure the EPA addresses the harms of all pesticides, as the law requires.

EPA was created after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring brought attention to the detrimental impact of the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Instead of heeding the original call of duty that its name implies, advocates say EPA is ignoring the harm these toxic chemicals cause to people and the environment until brought to heel by the courts.

“It is inappropriate that environmental groups are forced to expend time and resources in order to get EPA to simply do its job as the law requires,” says Barbara Dale, Public Education Manager at Beyond Pesticides.

Some alarming “fun” facts on a few of these toxic chemicals:

>> Atrazine is the second most widely-used herbicide in the U.S., and it is a known endocrine disruptor. Even at low levels it chemically castrates frogs. Beyond Pesticides wrote about this chemical last December, “During peak use, atrazine levels in drinking water [in the Midwest] have been recorded at three to seven times above the legal limit. In addition to the well documented impact on the environment, recent studies have linked prolonged pesticide exposure to not only shortened gestation and preterm birth for women, but also neurodevelopment delays in children.”

>> Carbaryl is classified as a likely carcinogen by EPA. The production of carbaryl can involve using methyl isocyanate (MIC) as an intermediary; a leak of MIC during production of carbaryl caused the Bhopal disaster, the most lethal industrial accident in history with over 500,000 injuries and 20,000 fatalities – 8,000 of which were instant. Wikileaks revealed in 2012 that Dow Chemical engaged an intelligence research organization to spy on activists involved in advocating for victims of the Bhopal disaster.

>> Anticoagulant rodenticides such as brodifacoum travel up the food chain and cause secondary poisonings to mammals and birds.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a regulatory approach to pesticides that prohibits high-risk chemical practices. Rather, the federal regulatory framework should focus on safer, effective alternatives, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the vast majority of toxic chemicals.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, October 30^th, 2019) This month, the Thai government moved to ban some toxic chemicals out of concern for the health of its residents and environment. In response, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Undersecretary Ted McKinney sent a document to Thailand’s Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha pushing back on their plan. As the Thai government makes changes to protect the health and represent the will of the people, the U.S. acts on behalf of its allegiance to agrichemical companies on an international stage.

After powerful and sustained activism from local advocacy groups such as BioThai, the Thai government decided to upgrade glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat from Type 3 toxic substances to Type 4, meaning these chemicals will no longer be allowed to be produced, imported, or possessed in the country. Witoon Lianchamroon, director of BioThai, says glyphosate and paraquat “contaminate our water, the soil, and some species like crab or fish or frog. These two main herbicides cover around half of the total pesticide use in the country and they cause a lot of problems.”

The ban was approved by the National Hazardous Substances Committee, made up of 29 experts in the field, on October 22. Beginning December 1, the ban will go into effect and residents will be asked to turn in leftover products to the government to be destroyed. While the ban doesn’t include agricultural products, Thai farmers who oppose the change are asking that Thailand also embargo imports of crops from countries that allow the chemicals – such as the U.S.

“Should a ban be implemented, it would severely impact Thailand’s imports of agricultural commodities such as soybeans and wheats,” wrote Mr. McKinney. According to USDA data, in 2018 the US exported $593 million worth of soybeans and $180 million of wheat to Thailand. Mr. McKinney asked Thailand to instead maintain the current maximum residue limits and postpone the ban before “fully considering the scientific evidence” regarding – particularly – glyphosate. The chemical company Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, exports glyphosate-based products to Thai farmers.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” in 2015. A study published earlier this month by an international team of researchers found the chemical had the potential to induce breast cancer when combined with other risk factors. US courts are finding glyphosate guilty, awarding millions of dollars to individuals who trace their cancer to the use of the chemical.

Despite all evidence of harm, the US government remains internationally adamant in its defense of toxic chemicals. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue was vocal on behalf of Bayer in April when Vietnam began its process of banning glyphosate due to health concerns in April. President Donald Trump urged Columbia to lift its restrictions on glyphosate aerial spraying in August, reportedly offering more funding if the aerial sprays were allowed to resume.

An official in the pesticide regulatory division at the Thai Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives told Bloomberg Environment that Thailand is moving toward organic farming and must destroy the chemicals because, “it’s not safe, not healthy.”

Other Thai officials also stand by the ban. Public health minister Anutin Charnvirak told Reuters, “Our job is to take care of the people’s health.” Mananya Thaiset, deputy minister of agriculture, said, “It’s not right to force us to take what we don’t want.”

The successful work of grassroots activists in Thailand offers encouragement to the global community of individuals who are fighting to create a world free of toxic pesticides. While the Trump Administration is unsympathetic to pesticide issues at best and corrupt at worst, it is still possible to build momentum in your local community and build power for the future. Read our Resources for a Pesticide-Free Community to start, and then give us a call at 202-543-5450 or email [email protected] for support.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes to the way farmworkers and bystanders are protected from toxic pesticide applications, per an announcement published on the agency’s website last week. Billed as “improvements” that will “reduce regulatory burdens for farmers,” the actions would instead significantly shrink Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs), buffer areas where individuals are not supposed to enter during a pesticide application.

Health and justice advocates say the move will put farmworkers at risk. “Although the proposal is framed as a narrow revision, it would in fact eliminate, reduce or weaken various AEZ provisions,” said Farmworker Justice attorney Iris Figueroa to Politico. “These changes threaten to increase exposure to toxic pesticide drift for farmworkers and their families.”

EPA’s proposal, announced in a press release featuring the heads of industry associations like the American Farm Bureau, would do the following:

• Make AEZs applicable only to a farm owners’ property. Under the current rules, pesticide handlers were required to keep individuals out of an area where pesticides were applied both on and off site.
• Exempt on-farm family members from all aspects of the AEZ. EPA says this will allow farmers and their family “to decide whether to stay in their homes or …on their property during certain pesticide applications, rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining.” Critics note that feeling safe and being safe are very different, one based on emotions and the other on science.
• Clarify that suspended pesticide applications may continue when an individual leaves an AEZ, and revise criteria around determining when a pesticide application is subject to an AEZ. Opposition to the proposal indicates these changes backtrack safety requirements and would shrink the type of pesticide applications covered under this rule.

The agrichemical industry has lobbied against the AEZ and other farmworker protections since they were revised during the Obama administration. The Obama-era revision occurred after 25 years of inaction on farmworker rights and was worked out with both industry and farmworker advocates at the table. Early in Trump’s presidency, then EPA-head Scott Pruitt announced his intent to revisit several provisions that were recently put in place. This included the requirement that farmworkers be 18 to apply highly toxic pesticides, a clause which allows farmworkers have a “designated representative” obtain information about where and when pesticides were applied, and the AEZ.

As recent as October 2018, and even after 28 Senators wrote EPA to oppose any changes, the agency had intended to revise each of these reforms. But it appears that in late 2018, an agreement was reached as part of a deal cut by lawmakers and the administration that permitted confirmation of Alexandra Dunn to the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in exchange for EPA concessions that would improve pesticide safety measures. Beyond Pesticides wrote, “While advocates are generally pleased with the outcome of the apparent deal, the irony that deals needed to be made for an agency with protection in its name to do its job is not lost.”

As noted at the time of the deal, AEZs were not included in this agreement. Last week’s announcement shows EPA delivered for industry interests within the year.

Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. This is similar to the life expectancy of individuals living in the 1850s and represents a completely unacceptable data point for any industry today in a developed country. It is critical that government agencies work towards enforcing laws agreed to by consensus between industry and advocates, rather than work with industry in its attempts to renege on these deals.

For more information on the plight and daily struggle farmworkers face as they work to put food on the tables of every America, see Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage.

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

Source: EPA Press Release, Politico

(Beyond Pesticides, October 27, 2019) The spraying of toxic herbicides for weed control on campuses exposes students, workers and the general public to chemicals linked to health problems such as cancer and reproductive issues.

Any day now, the University of California system will decide whether or not to continue using glyphosate and other toxic herbicides — including Roundup — on their campuses.

The University of California temporarily banned the use of cancer-causing glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, but the ban doesn’t stop the UC system from using other dangerous herbicides. Student activists are asking UC to commit to transitioning to all organic land care maintenance on all University of California campuses by 2025. This could be an opportunity for the University of California, which prides itself on its commitment to sustainability, to join other universities such as Harvard, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, and others as a national leader in the field.

Tell University of California President Napolitano to issue a full, permanent ban on toxic herbicides and shift the UC land care system to organic!

Message to University of California President

First of all, I would like to thank you for temporarily suspending the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on the University of California campuses and for establishing an Herbicide task force in order to consider long-term approaches to land management.

In anticipation of your Nov. 1 decision I am writing to ask you – for the sake of future generations – to permanently ban toxic herbicides and commit to transitioning to all organic land care maintenance on all University of California campuses by 2025. Organic alternatives exist. This could be an opportunity for the University of California, which prides itself on its commitment to sustainability, to join other universities such as Harvard, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, and others as a national leader in the field.

I understand that you will be stepping down after August 2020. This is an opportunity to leave a legacy in the field of sustainability and stand up for public health and the environment. We can’t wait to celebrate with you.

Thank you,

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2019) Washington State officials have approved an agreement that will prevent oyster growers farming in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor from spraying the neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticide, imidacloprid, on tidal flats to kill native burrowing shrimp. The development comes after years of discussion and dispute among the Washington State Department of Ecology, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association.

Beyond Pesticides has advocated for protection of these relatively pristine estuary areas from toxic pesticides since 2002, when it worked for (ultimately successful) elimination of the use of the highly toxic carbaryl against the shrimp. More recently, it has reported and weighed in frequently on use of imidacloprid and efforts to eliminate its use, as well as on broad contamination of waterways by neonics.

Neonics are well documented to be a huge threat to pollinators and other nontarget organisms, as well as to the environment at large. Imidacloprid is banned by the European Union for outdoor use, and Canada is scheduled to announce details by year’s end on its implementation of a phaseout of neonics. Washington State’s own risk assessment study found that use of imidacloprid on tidelands showed “immediate adverse, unavoidable impacts to juvenile worms, crustaceans, and shellfish to the areas treated . . . and the nearby areas covered by incoming tides. . . . This includes the commercially important Dungeness crab, which is also killed by imidacloprid, as are the native burrowing shrimp.”

The native burrowing shrimp at issue actually comprise two species: the ghost shrimp and the mud shrimp, which live in Pacific tidal flats from California to Alaska — the same habitat used for oyster (and clam) farming. The mud shrimp are on the decline because of a parasitic infection, but ghost shrimp numbers are rising — due in part to alterations in the watershed caused by human activity, such as logging and farming, and to changing climatic conditions. (For more on those changes, and the ecological imbalances that have given rise to this overpopulation of burrowing shrimp, see the “Out of Balance!” section of this Pesticides and You article.)

The shrimp imperil oyster farming because as many as 100 per square meter burrow as much as a meter deep into the sands of the tidal flats and destabilize the seabed. As they feed, they “are essentially mining the sand,” says Oregon State University Scientist John Chapman. The result is that the sands of the flats shift and become muck-like, often causing mature oysters to sink into the muck and get smothered.

The agreement, between the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association (WGHOGA), establishes a working group — comprising state and industry officials and an environmental representative — that would be charged with developing an alternative plan for dealing with the burrowing shrimp. Ideas being considered include deep mechanical harrowing of the tideland sediments; “dye studies” to understand better how any chemicals applied would move through the estuaries; a non-native parasite that feeds on the shrimp’s blood; and experiments with water temperature and salinity. Of course, any of those is likely to have environmental impacts beyond suppression of the shrimp. The settlement also creates resources for monitoring impacts of the burrowing shrimp on commercial oyster (and clam) operations in the two bodies of water.

The agreement was finalized in mid-October by the state Pollution Control Hearings Board. The accord came after years of both efforts by growers to ensure the ability to use the neonic treatment to protect their oyster crops, and advocacy by environmental and community groups against use of imidacloprid on such fragile ecosystems. In response to the agreement, Nathan Donley, a Center for Biological Diversity scientist, said, “Our beautiful coastline is no place to spray a dangerous pesticide that is notorious for contaminating water throughout the country. This important agreement will put an end to the disastrous plan to spray imidacloprid in some of our state’s most important and fragile waters.”

When carbaryl was phased out in 2002 (on a use-reduction schedule of 10% by 2003, 30% by 2004, 30% by 2005, and 100% by 2012), growers began to request permission to use imidacloprid — a neurotoxin that can harm marine life, as well as other species. The compound was not developed for use on or near water bodies, but in 2013, EPA nevertheless approved growers’ requests to use it, and in 2015, Ecology issued a permit to apply imidacloprid to up to 2,000 acres of tidelands in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

Public response was quick and plentiful, and the issue gained unusual notoriety when a number of high-profile Seattle chefs refused to purchase and use oysters contaminated with the neonic. A groundswell of public comment ensued, with thousands contacting state officials with their objections, and in 2018, Ecology temporarily denied growers’ request for a permit allowing annual application of imidacloprid to as many as 500 acres. WGHOGA then appealed that denial. Several nonprofits were involved in the appeal process as intervenors advocating against permitting of imidacloprid: the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, and the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. The National Marine Fisheries Service also opposed use of the compound because of its harms to marine life. With the announced agreement, WGHOGA has agreed to drop its appeal.

This does not mean that the potential for pesticide use against the shrimp has disappeared. The agreement calls for development of alternate means of control — including possible chemical means — and sets out a 2020 timetable for field trials of any alternative insecticides that might be effective. Further, Ecology and WGHOGA are asking the legislature for $650,000 for research efforts. Prior to now, attempts at alternative, non-pesticide controls, including, according to Aquaculture North America, “electric shock (the shrimp burrowed deeper), sprayed concrete (they poked through before it dried), propane in the burrows (it wouldn’t ignite), spicy habanero peppers, high pressure water hoses, even dynamite,” have been futile.

It is not hard to feel some sympathy for the oyster growers; the industry is more than 100 years old and is an important economic and cultural feature of southwest coastal Washington. As the The Astorian (a North Coast Oregon newspaper) reports, “Oyster aquaculture is the biggest-dollar contributor to a state shellfish-farming industry that generates nearly $150 million annually, according to a 2013 study, and in some rural areas of coastal Washington, such as Willapa Bay, is an important source of jobs and tax revenue.” In early 2019, Oregon Public Broadcasting covered the issue through the lens of a longstanding oystering family business, which is facing, at best, an uncertain future, and at worst, the dissolution of a multi-generational family business that employs local workers. Kathleen Nisbet-Moncy, a member of the family who helps run the business, said, “This is our livelihood. It’s really sad to see something you worked so hard to create, to see it taken over by a predator you have no control over.”

As the above-referenced article in Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You, identifies, human activity has had a huge impact on the ecological dynamics of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor estuaries, including loss of native predators, increases in invasive species, and slumping native shellfish production. The article explains, “In the mid-1800s, logging began altering stream morphology and increasing sediment load. Effluent from pulp mills was also dumped into waterways, impairing water quality and contributing to the decline of fish populations like salmon and sturgeon. Floodplains were cleared for agriculture and then later urbanized, leading to a loss of the natural riparian vegetation At the same time, the native Washington oyster, Ostrea lurida, also known as the Olympia oyster, began to decline due to over-harvesting and declining environmental quality. This led oystermen [sic] to import the Pacific oyster from Japan, [which] has thrived in the region. Artificial oyster beds were also created to help boost productivity. Although native to the region, by the early 1920s burrowing shrimp began growing in numbers. Some believe that changes in oystering practices led to the shrimp’s success. The natural layer of shell deposits upon which oysters attach is typically removed during harvest, exposing bare sediment, and allowing the shrimp to burrow. This, coupled with the declining predatory fish populations in the bay, led to an explosion in shrimp populations.”

Aquaculture North America notes, “Things weren’t so bad when the native Olympia oysters prevailed. Olympias clustered together and formed reef structures that float[ed] on the sand. Olympias and the burrowing shrimp existed together. But in the 1920s, Olympias in the Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor oyster beds were overfished to extinction. . . . Growers came in and replaced them with the faster growing Pacific (Japanese) oyster and moved up the tide zone. ‘The native Olympias grew in the low intertidal and subtidal zones,’ explains Brett Dumbauld of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Service. ‘The Japanese oysters are planted higher in the intertidal zone where the shrimp are more abundant.’”

As in so many industries that harvest or extract natural resources, part of the problem may be due to “simple” overexploitation. Intensive cultivation of oysters and other shellfish can harm other forms of floral and faunal marine life in tidal areas, and change the functional dynamics of local ecosystems so that, for example, predator–prey populations are no longer in equilibrium. When chemical “controls” are added to the equation, additional impacts and dysfunction can be catalyzed. There are rarely any quick-and-ready fixes for such ecosystems brought out of functional balance. Long-term solutions nearly always require broad changes in systems and approaches; the tidal habitat that has supported the oyster industry in southwest Washington is no exception.

A holistic approach to the problem could include enhancing and restoring the streams that spill into these bays and harbors, and continuing the ongoing work of restoring native salmon species that have been so decimated over the past two decades. As Beyond Pesticides noted in 2015, “Stream enhancement and restoration improve habitat for fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. These species can help control bountiful populations of burrowing shrimp and aquatic plants. Unfortunately, chemicals have been employed to reduce invasive plant pressures, and the borrowing shrimp. But the use of these chemicals only serves to further threaten the long-term health of the sensitive ecosystem by adversely affecting other non-target species, and potentially creating other out of balance communities. It is important that non-chemical options be explored, such as mechanical removal of invasive plants, and encouraging the revival of native fish and the development of natural oyster beds to suppress shrimp populations.”

Andrew Hawley of the Western Environmental Law Center opined, “Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are unique and fragile places, and we’re happy Ecology listened to the scientists who study these poisons and their effects on ecosystems. Some oyster and clam growers have successfully achieved a balance between the shrimp and their farmed shellfish without use of dangerous pesticides, and that should be model going forward.”

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

Sources: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/agreement-protects-willapa-bay-grays-harbor-spraying-dangerous-pesticide-2019-10-21/, https://www.dailyastorian.com/oyster-growers-agree-to-stop-use-of-insecticide-in-willapa/article_9e8f43e6-f440-11e9-ac96-9f2a125b8551.html, and https://www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com/burrowing-shrimp-taking-over-oyster-leases-1257/

(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2019) Fish and fruit are undoubtedly healthy foods, but modern-day contamination is leading scientists to caution pregnant mothers and young children to stick within current dietary guidelines, or switch to organic, in order to avoid adverse health effects. This new public health message is based on research published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives by scientists from University of Southern California (USC) and several European Countries, finding that overconsumption of fish and fruits leads to higher levels of contamination with toxic persistent chemicals.

“During gestation and early development, the fetus and the child, respectively, are vulnerable to the effects of environmental chemicals, said Lida Chatzi, MD, associate professor of preventive medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC. “A balanced diet during these periods is also critical for optimal nutritional status, but what to eat, and how much, are critical questions.”

Scientists studied a cohort of 1,288 children (between 6 and 11 years) and 818 pregnant mothers from six European countries, who were provided questionnaires to assess their weekly diet. Blood levels of a range of environmental toxicants, including organochlorine compounds like PCB, PFHSs, PFOS, PFOA, pesticides like DDT and DDE, and heavy metals including mercury and arsenic were tested. Likewise, urinary levels for industrial compounds like phthalates and parabens, as well as organophosphate pesticides, were also measured by researchers.

Results found that high self-reported fish and seafood consumption (more than 4 times per week) is associated with greater contamination by several chemicals and heavy metals when compared to those who reportedly ate fish less than 2 times per week. Pregnant mothers in the high consumption group had levels of PCBs 15% higher, mercury 89% and arsenic 487% higher than the low consumption group, with similar results seen for the children tested.

Researchers also found positive associations between eating fruit and levels of organophosphate pesticides in urine for both children and pregnant women. Pregnant women following the recommended serving of fruit – more than two servings per day – have higher pesticide metabolites in their urine than those who have lower fruit consumption. However, children that reportedly eat organic food at least once per week display lower urinary pesticide levels than those who do not eat organic food.

“The choice of organic over conventionally grown fruits contributed to lower exposures of pesticides and phthalates, while retaining the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Dr. Chatzi. “We believe the results carry important public health messages related to the avoidance of excess exposure to environmental contaminants with toxic effects on humans.”

This is far from the first study showing that an organic diet lowers pesticide levels in the body: A 2014 investigation found lower pesticide residue levels after a week-long shift to an organic diet; a 2015 study that found that adults who consumed organic produce had lower urinary levels of organophosphate residues, and another in 2015 that concluded that a switch to an organic diet reduced the body burden of pesticides in children, especially those in low-income urban, and in agricultural families.

Changes in our diet and food choices can be an effective route to avoid excess exposure to environmental chemicals,” said study co-author Eleni Papadopoulou, PhD, a researcher from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. “Understanding sources of dietary exposures to environmental chemicals can inform exposure assessment and identify intervention strategies to reduce exposure.”

While cutting out fish and fruits all together is not recommended, moderation within dietary guidelines and a switch to organic, respectively, appears to be a prudent approach to protect long-term health.

Eating organic is also about more than our own health – buying organic food supports an agricultural approach to reduces farmworker exposure to toxic pesticides, and stops them from poisoning birds, bees and other pollinators, and reduces pollutants in our waterways. For more information on why organic is the right choice for your health and the wider environment, see Beyond Pesticides Eating with a Conscience. Database.

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

Source: USC News Press Release, Environmental Health Perspectives (peer reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2019) Bees provide benefits to farmers that outweigh synthetic inputs, according to a large-scale field study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B earlier this month. Addressing the ongoing question of how much natural ecosystem services are worth, scientists analyzed the costs and benefits of biodiversity versus agrichemicals. Researchers found the value pollinators add to oilseed rape (OSR) production by increasing yields is higher than synthetic chemical inputs, which are costly to farmers and decrease beneficial insect abundance. The title of the study touts the impressive findings, “Bee pollination outperforms pesticides for oilseed crop production and profitability.”

Researchers collected data over six years from 294 OSR fields in France with various levels of soil quality, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and pollinator abundance. They measured pollinator biodiversity with nets and traps at the field sites. Farmers offered data on yield, costs, and profits. Using linear models fitted to the large data set, the study analyzed combined effects of inputs on OSR yield and gross margin. Bee abundance was the only variable that had a positive effect on gross margins.

Pollination is an ecosystem service that benefits one out of three agricultural crops. Studies from Ireland show that insect pollination can increase OSR yield up to 35%, with a value of 2.6 million Euros per year in the whole nation. However, there are few studies that have attempted to analyze the net benefits of pollinators versus chemical inputs in agriculture. The researchers state, “Based on a very large dataset spanning 4 and 6 years, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the synergy and antagonism between agrochemical applications and biodiversity, and their effects on yield and income.”

The region in France where the study was conducted is rich in pollinators, with over 250 native bees. In fields that hosted plenty of these bumbling workers, gross margins were an average of 15% higher than fields with lower pollinator diversity and could increase margins up to 40%. The use of insecticides is related to decreased bee abundance and is harmful to pollinators, but the research noted that productivity lost due to the use of pesticides could be offset with additional synthetic nitrogen. The benefit of using synthetic inputs to increase productivity, however, did not compensate for the cost of the chemicals. Interestingly, while the use of insecticides did reduce the number of agricultural pests, this study found no relationship between decreased pests and effect on yield.

This study offers fodder for the agroecology movement that touts the value of natural systems over synthetic inputs. As the study says, “Based on a large scale field survey, our results therefore support a ‘win-win-win’ balance between crop production, farm income and the environment.” The scientists encourage future studies in various farming areas as the bioregion in France is not necessarily ubiquitous.

As insect populations plummet worldwide, it is more important than ever to recognize the incredible wealth that biodiversity adds to our environment and, perhaps more tangibly, dinner plates. What more, various studies have now shown that toxic pesticides do not increase productivity or add economic benefit to farmers. Organic agriculture, which avoids the use of toxic chemicals, is a booming industry that supports farmers, pollinators, and consumers alike.

To help move the nation and world to organic and regenerative approaches that benefit producers, consumers, and the environment, follow Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of organics; engage with its Action of the Week; check out its Tools for Change; and consider joining the organization as one more way to advocate for the transition away from chemical agriculture. A better, less toxic world is possible.

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

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society B

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2019) Last week, legislators in a New Hampshire House subcommittee passed a bill to restrict the use of pesticides implicated in the decline of pollinator populations. HB 646, dubbed the Saving New Hampshire’s Pollinators Act, will now go to executive session on November 7 for final approval prior to a full vote by the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

If passed through the legislature, New Hampshire would become the fourth state in the nation to curb the use of dangerous pesticides to protect pollinator populations. Maryland, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed similar pieces of legislation. As reported by the state newspaper Union Leader, the pesticide industry came out in strong opposition to the legislation. Arguments from industry proponents focused on teaching lawmakers the controversy over the role pesticides play in pollinator declines, rather than the science on the dangers that these chemicals pose. These forces encouraged inaction, pushing the idea that it would be preferable to endanger the future of New Hampshire’s beekeepers, native pollinators, state bird and other songbirds, rather than encourage an already necessary shift toward safer pest management practices.

“For many years the big chemical companies have flooded the market with information about how their products are safe and reliable at fixing any problem concerned with outside weeds and pests,” said Representative Catherine Sofikitis (D-Hillsborough), the prime sponsor of HB 646. “Unfortunately, that is not really true. We are losing our pollinators because of the massive amounts of pesticides that are used. Without these pollinators we will not have food. Banning neonic pesticides is a good first step for New Hampshire.”

Although the bill as passed through subcommittee would allow certified applicators to continue using bee-toxic pesticides, advocates are supporting the bill as a critical first step for pollinator protection in the state. Members of the NH Save Our Pollinators Coalition, who attended the latest subcommittee work session wearing yellow in support of the bill, are pleased with lawmakers’ determination to address pesticide use as a means of reversing the ongoing pollinator crisis. In New Hampshire last year, beekeepers lost a reported 37.4% of their honey bee colonies; the year before, 44.2%. Researchers at UNH have documented dramatic declines in several species of native bees over the last few years.

“There is a multitude of scientific data connecting this class of toxic insecticides and others to detrimental effects on pollinators, wildlife and our environment,” said Diana Carpinone of Non-toxic New Hampshire. “HB 646 is an essential step in protecting New Hampshire’s pollinators.”

The bill is set for a final vote in early November and, if successful, would need to be passed by both the full New Hampshire House and Senate, and then signed by the Governor.

“Honey bees and wild pollinators are vital to pollination,” said Fawn Gaudet of the New Hampshire Save Our Pollinators Coalition. “But without action from state lawmakers, the future of our food system remains in jeopardy.”

New Hampshire residents can contact their elected representative today and urge them to join in support of the Saving NH’s Pollinators Act. If you’re in a state that hasn’t acted to safeguard pollinators from toxic pesticides, reach out to your state lawmakers and urge them to introduce legislation. Contact Beyond Pesticides for information and strategies to move your efforts forward, and see the Bee Protective webpage for more resources. See here for Beyond Pesticides full statement in support of HB 646.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 20, 2019) USDA’s National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) should remove nonorganic celery powder from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances for use in organic food production.

It has been long-established that nitrates and nitrites, used to prevent bacterial growth in processed meats, react with protein to create nitrosamines, which are widely considered to be possible carcinogens. The World Health Organization considers processed meat “a known carcinogen.”

Tell NOSB to remove carcinogenic nonorganic celery powder from organic processed meat.

For too long the meat industry, including organic processors, have engaged in a form of subterfuge by being able, and in fact required, to label meat preserved with celery powder as “no nitrates or no nitrites added” or “uncured.”

The use of conventional celery powder, with amped up applications of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, creates the same functional and biological impacts as synthetic nitrates/nitrates as a meat preservative.

The federal laws governing organics are clear. To legally use a synthetic compound, or a natural or agricultural material that is not certified organic, in the production of certified organic product, it must appear on the list of approved substances. And to do so, proposed materials must not damage the environment or human health, must be essential to the production of a given food or crop, and must be compatible with organic philosophy.

There is little doubt that the continuance of celery powder on the National List violates the trust of consumers who seek out organic food as a safe haven from what is conventionally offered in the supermarket and all too often contains dangerous and risky ingredients.

Tell NOSB to remove carcinogenic nonorganic celery powder from organic processed meat.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 18, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a directive in September, under Administrator Andrew Wheeler, that changes its pesticide approval process and aims to reduce (mammalian) animal testing significantly by 2035. The agency also announced awards totaling $4.25 million to four universities for development of alternative methods to evaluate chemicals, including pesticides. The move will likely be seen both as an advancement of animal rights, and as a setback for the kinds of testing that can have important implications for human health. Resolution of this issue could be found in a shift away from chemical agriculture and to organic and regenerative practices, which eschew toxic chemicals and synthetic fertilizers, and obviate need for them.

The directive affects not only the agency’s own research, but also, as the memo says, EPA will “come as close as possible to excluding from its approval process any reliance on mammal studies conducted after January 1, 2035, including those performed by third parties.” The schools receiving EPA funds to work on alternative testing are Johns Hopkins University, Vanderbilt University and Vanderbilt’s Medical Center, Oregon State University, and the University of California-Riverside.

President of the International Science Consortium for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Amy Clippinger, PhD commented, “PETA is celebrating the EPA’s decision to protect animals certainly, but also humans and the environment, by switching from cruel and scientifically flawed animal tests in favor of modern, non-animal testing methods.” Those who oppose animal testing comprise some unusual bedfellows: animal rights advocates, such as PETA and the Human Society of the U.S.; the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine; small-government activists; and the chemical industry.

Those bedfellows are no doubt pleased with the announcement because, enacted, it would largely eliminate what they regard as inhumane treatment of subject animals. They further argue that animal testing is actually a poor predictor of human health impacts for a variety of reasons, including:
• reactions to chemicals vary enormously from species to species

• lab animals are typically psychologically stressed, which can jeopardize the validity of results
• there are other useful ways to test impacts of chemicals exposure, such as through in vitro (conducted in a controlled laboratory setting) and in silico (conducted by computer modeling) experiments
• many animal experiments are fundamentally flawed

Supporters of animal testing for chemicals used in pesticide products maintain that:

• animals provide models of biology and pathology similar enough to those of humans to yield results salient to human health
• there is no adequate alternative to testing on living, whole-body systems
• animal research is highly regulated so as to protect animals from mistreatment
• animals often are better research subjects (than humans, even were it ethical to use people) because of their shorter life cycles
• animals must be used in cases in which ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects
• alternative methodologies are not meet to the toxicological challenges of the complex dynamics inherent in cancer or reproductive toxicology

Lena Smirnova, PhD of Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing notes that animal — and especially rodent — physiology differs in many ways from that of humans, and that, e.g., in one research study comparing human and animal drug toxicities, rodent models correctly predicted human toxicity in only 43% of the cases. She adds, “If you look at something very complex, like reproductive toxicity or developmental toxicity or carcinogenicity, rats predict mice by around 60%. So why would we expect that it would be better in humans?” Her laboratory at Johns Hopkins is working on microphysiological systems dubbed “mini brains” to observe neurotoxic effects, currently for chlorpyrifos and rotenone.

The legitimacy of using of animal subjects in experiments is an ongoing debate in the scientific community. But the EPA announcement may be understood in some quarters as an agency end-run around EPA’s responsibility “to protect human health and the environment.” Administrator Andrew Wheeler, who is a former coal industry lobbyist, has led the Trump administration’s aggressive campaign to roll back critical environmental regulations.

In this effort, Mr. Wheeler has charged senior EPA leadership with developing a plan that “will identify tangible steps to ensure that the agency’s regulatory, compliance and enforcement activities, including chemical and pesticide approvals and agency research, remain fully protective of human health and the environment while pursing these reduction goals.” This is a laudable goal whose achievement is, unfortunately, belied by the already-inadequate review of pesticides that occurs under EPA auspices.

An article co-written for Environmental Health News by Laura Vandenberg, PhD, Associate Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass Amherst) School of Public Health and Health Sciences, and Thomas Zoeller, PhD, Professor of Biology at UMass Amherst, says squarely: “Chemical testing by the EPA and other regulatory agencies must be improved” because it is currently inadequate.

Drs. Vandenberg and Zoeller maintain that current testing for chemical safety (which would include pesticides review) does not adequately protect human health. They cite: the record levels of chronic diseases, both in the U.S. and elsewhere; the strong links between exposure to environmental chemicals, and developmental disorders and endocrine disruption; and research evidence showing that chemicals that are approved by EPA are contributing to chronic disease development. Although open to new technologies to reduce use of animal testing, the scientists say that “unless the Agency [EPA] changes the way it evaluates the effects of chemicals on health, a shift away from animal testing will reduce an already inadequate protection for human health.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has written, “This is yet another Trump Administration attack on scientific information, this time targeting the laboratory animal tests that show whether and how chemicals may harm people, wildlife, and ecosystems. Instead, the Trump EPA is pushing the use of non-animal alternative methods that are mostly still in development, and cannot capture the complexity of many chemical exposure risks like infertility and cancer.”

NRDC welcomes the development of non-animal test methods that could help identify potential toxicity and adverse effects on humans, wildlife, and the environment. Organization scientists say that “use of these tests — like any scientific or other toxicity information — can be harmful if used to explain away adverse effects (that is, incorrectly identifying a toxic chemical as harmless). In cases where this happens, harmful chemicals can get into our air, water, cosmetics and personal care products, household items, food and food packaging, etc., threatening the health of humans, pets and wildlife. Thus, if used to permit chemicals onto the market, the regulatory system must use the test information in a health-protective and precautionary manner. That is not the case with the Trump EPA, and it isn’t clear when EPA, the FDA or other regulatory agencies will adopt a simple health-protective approach, rather than favoring the chemical industry that it is supposed to regulate.”

Part of critics’ concern is that the move away from animal testing will fast-track approval of pesticide and other chemical products into the marketplace with inadequate or flawed toxicity testing. Despite some advances in non-animal acute toxicity testing, the arena of chronic and systemic health impacts is more challenging territory for such protocols. Such impacts tend to be more complex disorders — such as reproductive, oncological, and endocrine diseases — whose chemical-exposure catalysts or causes some scientists say are more accurately evaluated via whole-animal testing. In addition, the evaluation of exposure effects and developmental windows in children cannot be evaluated, e.g., in a petri dish. NRDC and other critics say that imposing an artificial deadline, when in vitro and in silico approaches are still nascent, is ill advised, and that funding and animal testing are important to the mission of informing and protecting the public.

NRDC senior scientist Jennifer Sass, PhD, critiqued EPA’s announcement, saying that “EPA is phasing out the tools that lay the groundwork for protecting the public from dangers like formaldehyde and chlorpyrifos, a pesticide used on crops, animals and buildings. The EPA’s plan is a ‘gift’ to the chemical industry that will result in a ‘rigged system that gives the green light to harmful chemicals. Our concern is not with the alternative tests themselves. Our concern is with how EPA is interpreting the data from them. If the tests themselves are not indicating a toxic effect, then EPA is presuming there is no toxic effect.’” Dr. Sass argues that animal testing works to protect public health, and says that the organization endorses a more-precautionary approach to the use of chemicals that would proscribe approval of any that show evidence of harm in animals.

Drs. Vandenberg and Zoeller point out that EPA could alter its approach to regulating chemicals in order to use these emerging non-animal technologies sensibly: “Instead of requiring overt evidence that a chemical causes harm in animals or people, they could use the results from cell-based tests to identify chemicals that interact with biological systems. Because there would be no information about how these cell-based tests quantitatively relate to humans, they would have to move to a ‘hazard-based’ approach.”

The Precautionary Principle, as set out in 1998, says: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.”

It is staggering to recognize the reality that our nation and world are saturated with human-made chemicals — 80,000 on the market in the U.S. alone, and most synthesized only in the past 50 years. The majority of those compounds have not been evaluated for effects other than acute toxicity, and 95% have not been reviewed for potential impacts on children. Given these circumstances, Beyond Pesticides advocates for a Precautionary approach to permitting of all pesticides, and for the transition to a world free of them. Join us: https://beyondpesticides.org/join/sign-me-up.

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

Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennysplitter/2019/10/14/the-epa-is-changing-how-it-tests-agricultural-pesticides/#785bd7d82c14 and https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/epa-attack-science-targets-critical-animal-tests

(Beyond Pesticides, October 17, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is downplaying the connection between exposure to the herbicide paraquat and the development of Parkinson’s disease, per registration review documents released by the agency this week. Although unsurprising given the current administration’s track record of defending some of the most heinous chemicals still on the market, the review nonetheless marks a low point for scientific integrity within EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, according to advocates. Health and environmental advocates have already discounted EPA’s industry-biased review, and are instead pushing hard for Congressional action – namely HR 3817, the Protect Against Paraquat Act, introduced by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY).

Under federal law, pesticides are required to undergo reevaluation every 15 years. Paraquat is a potent restricted use herbicide, not available to be applied by residential users, but permitted for use on multiple agriculture crops. Over the last decade, independent peer-reviewed scientific studies have repeatedly found strong associations between paraquat to the development of Parkinson’s disease. Many of these studies have been covered in Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News or are recorded in the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

In response to this growing body of literature, EPA conducted an epidemiological evaluation of published studies on the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s. But, in a similar manner to how the agency conducted its epidemiological evaluation of pyrethroids, EPA made broad statements dismissing scientific evidence as insufficient.

While the chemical has been banned in the European Union since 2007, as a 2016 New York Times exposé found, millions of pounds are still being imported into the U.S. from other countries, sprayed on nearly 15 million acres of U.S. cropland. The Chinese government began a phase-out of the chemical in 2013, and Brazil is set to eliminate this chemical.

“America stands alone in functioning as a dumping ground for paraquat, a toxic herbicide other countries may produce, but refuse to expose their residents to,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director for Beyond Pesticides.

On the link between paraquat and Parkinson’s, “The data is overwhelming” said Samuel M. Goldman, MD, an epidemiologist in the San Francisco Veterans Affairs health system to the New York Times. “I’m not a farmer, I don’t need to kill weeds, but I have to believe there are less dangerous options out there.”

An EPA environmental review conducted as part of the reregistration process found evidence of significant reproductive harm to small mammals, and determined that songbirds may be exposed to levels well beyond lethal concentrations known to cause death. Threats to mammals and songbirds are particularly concerning in light of significant declines in these animal groups.

As EPA continues to damage public trust in its scientific review process, it is up to everyday citizens and residents of the US to correct course and push for health protective laws. Beyond Pesticides and other organizations stand ready to assist farming communities in transforming pest management by eliminating a reliance on toxic pesticides like paraquat and adopting organic practices.

Act to get paraquat out of America’s food system by encouraging your Congressional representative to cosponsor the Protect Against Paraquat Act. The legislation is supported by the Unified Parkinson’s Advocacy Council – a group led by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research – and supported by other health and environmental groups.

Source: EPA Paraquat Dichoride Registration Review, Center for Biological Diversity

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 16, 2019) Organic poultry is far less likely than conventionally raised meats to contain antibiotic-resistant Salmonella, according to research presented last week at a conference for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. With bacterial resistance to common antibiotics on the rise, in large part due to misuse in agriculture, consumers are looking for the best choice to feed themselves and their families. While researchers did find organic poultry production to result in fewer instances of antibiotic resistance, there are still improvements that must be made in organic to further reduce and ultimately eliminate the threat of bacterial resistance and align organic standards with consumer expectations.

“Although contamination of retail poultry was found in both conventionally raised and antibiotic-free samples, our results show that Salmonella in poultry produced without antibiotics – based on packaging claims – were significantly less resistant to antibiotics compared with poultry raised using conventional methods,” said Xin Yin, MPH, lead author of the study and DrPH candidate at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania. “Consumers should read production labels and make informed choices based on the evidence about the risk of poultry contamination with drug-resistant Salmonella.”

For the study, researchers analyzed samples conducted on randomly purchased turkey and chicken in the state of Pennsylvania between 2008-2017. Of the 2,733 conventional samples tested, roughly 10%, 280, of those samples were contaminated with Salmonella compared to 5.3%, 40, of the 748 organic samples tested. Within these numbers, over half, (55%), 154 of the 280 conventional Salmonella detects, were resistant to three or more antibiotics. The same was true for only 11 of the 40 organic samples (28%) that tested positive for the bacteria. Nearly 25% of conventional Salmonella samples displayed some level of resistance to the last resort antibiotic ceftriaxone. Three of the 40 organic samples contained this level of resistance.

“These findings underscore how important it is to use antibiotics judiciously, not only in human medicine but in food-producing animals,” said Nkuchia M. M’ikanatha, DrPH, MPH, an author on both studies and an epidemiologist with the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. “We found a significant percentage of Salmonella bacteria in meat that causes infection in humans were resistant to three or more antibiotics, meaning treatments may not work for some patients who really need them.”

Antibiotics are used in animal agriculture under the guise of treating infections but are often employed within a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) that stresses animals. In this context, antibiotics are used to lower environmental stressors and allow animals to put on weight. Near the time of this report’s presentation, Beyond Pesticides reported on another study that raised a red flag on global antibiotic resistance, noting problems in chicken production and certain hotspots like China, Pakistan, Turkey, Brazil, Egypt, Vietnam, Mexico, and South Africa.

While the data point to organic being a safer choice, it is evident there is a need to strengthen organic standards to further reduce and eliminate bacterial contamination. Beyond Pesticides has encouraged organic consumers to get active in the standard setting process and urge the board to finalize organic animal welfare rules. Despite publishing a final rule, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue has refused to implement this important law.

Many poultry producers are receiving certified organic status while operating under conditions similar to factory farms. By setting minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements and defining “outdoors,” the rule being championed by consumer advocates would make it more difficult for factory egg and poultry farms to be certified organic.

Implementation of this rule is critical for human and environmental health, as well as the wallets of certified organic farmers. Otherwise, real organic farmers following the letter, spirit and intent of organic practices will have the reputation of their their truly safer products sullied by those concerned only with gaining a price premium for their meat.

Take action to fight back against organic CAFOs and other practices that damage organic integrity by visiting Beyond Pesticides Keeping Organic Strong webpage. Although the comment period is closed, you can still follow along with the issues, or register to speak in person at the upcoming National Organic Standards Board meeting taking place in Pittsburgh, PA next week, October 23-25^th.

Source: Infectious Disease Society of America

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 15, 2019) EPA is requesting comment on its proposal to require data that will help it determine synergistic effects of some pesticides. EPA has received on a pressure on a number of fronts, including a report by the Center for Biological Diversity, a report by its own Inspector General, a letter from 35 Congressional Representatives, and research pointing to the unavoidability of synergistic effects—the chemical combinations that cause greater effects when mixed together than the sum of the individual chemical effects. Despite all of the evidence that synergism is the rule rather than the exception, EPA’s consideration focuses on a narrow range of cases in which pesticide product patents make claims of synergy.

Tell EPA to always investigate synergy and to determine need for pesticides.

One such product is Dow’s Enlist Duo, which combines glyphosate and 2,4-D in an attempt to overcome weed resistance. The focus on products and tank mixes where synergism is a selling point brings to light the fact that as a rule, EPA does not request efficacy data in registering pesticides not intended to protect public health. Thus, although required by law to weigh pesticide risks and benefits, EPA rarely has data to make that determination.

Comment at Regulations.gov. Make the following points:

Pesticides occur in mixtures in air, soil, water, and agricultural products. The impacts of mixtures must be considered in all registration decisions.

• The decision that a pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects considering all the risks and benefits requires EPA to determine whether a pesticide is effective. Therefore, efficacy data should be required for all pesticides.
• Synergistic effects of pesticides may involve interactions with pharmaceutical chemicals and naturally-occurring processes in humans and other organisms.
• Synergistic effects may be mediated in the environment. For example, an herbicide may destroy habitat for an animal that is also poisoned by an insecticide.
• EPA must investigate possible synergistic effects of all pesticides.

Written comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov until 11:59 pm ET October 24, 2019. 

Not sure how to use our suggested language to comment? Follow these simple steps:

1. Select the text in the bullet points above (place your cursor before the first word in the text, then press and hold down the left mouse button and, without releasing the button, move the cursor to the end of the comments).
2. Copy the selected text by selecting the Ctrl and C keys simultaneously.
3. Click on this link to open a new tab and in that tab, place your cursor in the “Comment” box.
4. Paste the comments you copied by selecting the Ctrl and V keys simultaneously.
5. Personalize your comments before entering your contact information and selecting “Continue” by adding a sentence or two about your concerns about pesticide use and/or exposure.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 11, 2019) The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public comment on a document that describes an “interim process” being used to assess potential synergistic effects of admixtures of pesticide active ingredients on non-target organisms. This interim risk assessment process was catalyzed in part by a 2015 lawsuit brought by a group of non-governmental organizations; that suit cited EPA’s failure to evaluate appropriately the impacts of a new herbicide, Enlist Duo, on non-target species, including some endangered species. EPA’s inattention to synergistic impacts on non-target species has long been a deficiency of EPA’s pesticide review and regulation and a focus for Beyond Pesticides’ work to factor in uncertainties, or unknowns, in registering pesticides under a precautionary approach. Although EPA recognizes that pesticide exposures occur in combinations, it evaluates a very limited number of such interactions.

Manufactured by Dow AgroSciences, Enlist Duo combines glyphosate and 2,4-D. Increasingly, manufacturers create and market such “twofer” products as responses to the burgeoning issue of plant resistance to individual pesticides. As insects, fungi, weeds, or other “pests” inevitably develop resistance to pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, or insecticide compounds, the efficacy of the chemical treatment obviously plummets. Manufacturer response is often either to find a new chemical, or to “double down” with combined-ingredient products that may be effective until the next wave of resistance develops.

EPA acknowledged, during that 2015 litigation, which challenged EPA registration of Enlist Duo, that some patent applications for registered pesticide products claim that they provide so-called “synergistic” control of target species. The patent assertions about greater than additive (GTA) effects have “raised questions and concerns about the EPA’s current process for evaluating ecological risks of pesticide mixtures because some target pests are also members of taxonomic groups of nontarget organisms that EPA assesses.” Also in 2015, EPA asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to “vacate its [2014] registration decision and remand the application for Enlist Duo for further study of these effects and any measures that might be needed to mitigate the risk to non-target organisms.” The court denied EPA’s request.

Of EPA’s call for public comment, the National Law Review notes that, “EPA typically registers pesticide products that are not intended to protect public health without any independent evaluation of efficacy data. Nevertheless, in general EPA may choose to evaluate pesticidal efficacy data; such circumstances in the past often involved cases where EPA was required to consider whether pesticide benefits are sufficient to outweigh identified risks. In the Enlist [Duo] case, EPA determined that it should do so where potential synergy in pesticidal efficacy is pertinent to evaluating ecological effects on non-target species. What EPA must decide now is how often efficacy data that has been deemed adequate by the Patent and Trademark Office to support a patent for a new pesticide mixture will have any material significance in the context of ecological risk assessment. . . . EPA has decided it is prudent to afford all stakeholders an opportunity to comment on whether EPA has been asking the right questions.”

Some background: an application for registration of a pesticide product must meet standards in order to be approved. EPA describes those: “Applicants are responsible for citing or generating all data necessary to meet data requirements specified by FIFRA [the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the federal law that created the basic system of pesticide regulation]. The standard for determining whether an application should be granted includes a finding that: (1) a product’s composition warrants the proposed claims for it; (2) the product’s labeling and other material required to be submitted complies with FIFRA; (3) the product will perform its intended function without causing unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; and (4) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the product will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.” FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects” as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.”

For new chemicals in EPA’s pesticide registration process — about which EPA has specific concerns about the potential for GTA effects — the OPP protocol proposes to “request” that registrants: (1) review data from existent patent applications that assert GTA effects from active ingredient interactions; (2) compare data from those applications to EPA ecological risk assessment relevancy criteria; (3) report effects testing data from relevant patents; and (4) “analyze the data to determine if observations of greater than additive effects in mixtures are statistically significant in the context of test variability.” EPA would then review all submitted information to decide whether it should be utilized in ecological risk assessment. Importantly, OPP would rely here on: (1) registrant-submitted data rather than independently secured data, and (2) registrants’ compliance with the “requests.” The Federal Register notice of the protocol document does at least indicate that EPA is “uncertain concerning the utility for risk assessment of the information used by manufacturers to support synergistic effects claims in pesticide patents.”

“Synergy” in the pesticide context has two aspects: one is what these patent applications claim, which is some “greater than the sum of its parts” or “greater than additive” impact on, e.g., weed suppression, by these herbicides with multiple active ingredients. The other aspect is the largely unexamined — by regulators — universe of threats that exposure to multiple pesticide ingredients poses to the environment and to nontarget plant and animal species.

The OPP document, titled Process for Receiving and Evaluating Data Supporting Assertions of Greater Than Additive (GTA) Effects in Mixtures of Pesticide Active Ingredients and Associated Guidance for Registrants, sets out the process that OPP’s Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Division is using in its attempts to evaluate synergistic risks. However, that process reviews only those admixtures whose makers assert that their efficacy on the target weed or pest is synergistic. OPP’s narrow focus ignores all the other potential synergistic impacts — effects that may arise when organisms, whether floral or faunal, are exposed to multiple active pesticide ingredients. Such “mixing” may happen during industry formulation of a product, in an applicator’s garage or barn, or at the organismic point of exposure via air, water, soil, and/or food.

OPP’s protocol is typical of EPA’s failure to consider risks related to all those other vectors for exposure to multiple pesticides. In a 2016 letter to EPA, Beyond Pesticides noted, for example, that although EPA had concluded that “the combination of 2,4-D choline and glyphosate in Enlist Duo does not show any increased toxicity to plants,” it was unclear that EPA had evaluated synergistic risks to other, non-plant organisms (including humans), who would be exposed to this chemical mixture. Beyond Pesticides wrote, “It does not appear that assessments, based on exposure to both glyphosate and 2,4-D choline, have been conducted to properly assess whether synergistic effects can occur in non-plant organisms.” Beyond Pesticides has advocated, in the face of EPA’s inattention synergistic impacts, that the EPA Office of the Inspector General — tasked with conducting “audits and investigations of EPA to promote economy and efficiency, and to prevent and detect fraud, waste and abuse” — investigate this critical failure.

Beyond Pesticides advocates robustly for a regulatory approach to pesticides that prohibits high-risk chemical practices, and rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations filled with uncertainty. Rather, the federal regulatory framework should focus on safer, effective alternatives, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the vast majority of toxic chemicals.

Beyond Pesticides encourages public comment on the OPP risk assessment protocol. Such commentary could include the following points:

• Impacts of pesticides mixtures, which occur in in air, soil, water, and agricultural products, should be considered in all EPA registration decisions.
• Any decision that a pesticide does not cause unreasonable adverse effects (considering all the risks and benefits) requires EPA to determine whether a pesticide is effective. Thus, efficacy data should be required for all pesticides.
• Synergistic effects of pesticides may involve interactions with pharmaceuticals or naturally occurring biochemicals and processes in humans and other organisms.
• Synergistic effects may be mediated in the environment; for example, an herbicide may destroy habitat for an animal that is also being poisoned by an insecticide.
• EPA should investigate potential synergistic impacts of all pesticides.

Public comments on the proposed EPA policy can be contributed here until October 24 at 11:59pm EST. Please consider incorporating the bullet points above in your comments to EPA.

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

Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-seeks-comment-its-risk-assessment-methodology-evaluating-potential-synergistic

(Beyond Pesticides, October 10, 2019) Mysterious vaping illnesses across the country could be related to pesticide exposure, among other contaminants in black-market marijuana vaping products. To date, there have been 23 deaths from vaping-related illness, and about 1,100 cases of the illness nationwide. Yesterday, a 17-year-old boy from the Bronx became the youngest person to pass away from the illness. Most patients have reported that they used vape cartridges with THC. THC is the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

NBC News recently commissioned laboratory tests of 18 THC cartridges – three from a legal Californian dispensary and 15 from unlicensed dealers. Cartridges from legal dispensary had no heavy metals, pesticides, or residual solvents. 10 out of the 10 of the black-market products tested were positive for pesticides. CannaSafe, the laboratory, reported that some of the unregulated products contained the fungicide myclobutanil. Heating myclobutanil can cause it to break down into harmful products, including hydrogen cyanide – a known potent carcinogen. Other pesticides detected included mixtures of the following pesticide or pesticide formula ingredient: fipronil, piperonyl butoxide, permethrin, malathion, and others (see full test results here).

Melodi Pirzada, M.D., a pediatric pulmonologist at NYU Winthrop Hospital, called the finding of myclobutanil “very disturbing,” and mentioned that it would “cause a very toxic effect on the lungs.” Dr. Pirzada is alarmed at the results showing that 13/15 of the black-market samples contained vitamin E, a solvent which damages the lungs when inhaled.

The nicotine vaping industry is under fire as the illnesses impact young individuals that may be drawn in by fruity flavors such as “Candy Cane” and “Fruity Loops.” New York City filed a federal lawsuit against websites that sell these products to New Yorkers who are under 21, the legal age limit for tobacco products in New York. The American Vaping Association, meanwhile, maintains that the outbreak is linked to THC oils and black-market products.

Last December, Colorado recalled two legal marijuana products due to dangerous pesticide residues, raising questions on safety and regulations in cannabis production even in the state-sanctioned market. Beyond Pesticides insists that any and all pesticide use on cannabis is illegal. Advocates are asking states to establish laws and/or regulations that mandate an organic systems approach to cannabis production.

As stated in Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week, “Pesticides have not been registered for use in cannabis production, yet they are being widely used under state-adopted enforcement levels that imply safety, but not subject to any standard of review that meets pesticide registration standards.” As seen in the case of myclobutanil, heating toxic chemicals and inhaling them through the sensitive exposure route of the lungs is dangerous – not only due to the active ingredient but also the breakdown components.

Congress should intervene on the cannabis issue to protect public health and safety. Ask them to: (1) Hold oversight hearings to document state violations of federal pesticide law by allowing the pesticide use in cannabis production and processing, despite not being registered for this use by EPA. (2) Request an OIG and Government Accountability investigation to assist in clarifying EPA and state enforcement responsibility to ensure compliance with pesticide product labels.

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

Source: NBC News