Help Protect the Integrity of Organic Standards

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2019) Earlier this week, the National Organic Program (NOP) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a memo that will put a stop to the practice of allowing organic certification for container systems produced on land managed with substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate, which are not permitted in organic production. The decision comes after broad opposition to this NOP allowance was vociferously expressed by a cross section of commenters at the April meeting of the National Organic Standards Board. The head of NOP, Jenny Tucker, in response to questions, attempted to clarify her previous comment to farmers indicating that the practice met organic standards, but instead incited outrage at the NOSB meeting by refusing to reject the use glyphosate in container growing operations. The NOP decision is not retroactive for operations earlier allowed to use the chemicals.

The NOP memo clarifies and establishes stricter adherence to a pre-existing rule written into the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. While this clarification represents a victory for those fighting to keep organic strong, the certification of hydroponic and other container systems as organic continues to present a major challenge for the integrity of a system whose founding law mandates increasing soil fertility, conserving biodiversity, and building soil organic matter.

The new NOP memo clarifies a longstanding rule, known as the “three-year transition period,” as applied specifically to organic crop container systems. The rule states that to be considered as organic under OFPA, crop container systems must be produced on land that has been managed without synthetic chemicals or other prohibited substances, for at least three years immediately preceding harvest.

Without this three-year transition period, organic container system producers could, and did, benefit from the organic label without substantively transitioning any of their land to organic management. Foods labeled as “organic” could be – and have been to this point – produced in containers on land drenched with prohibited pesticides, including the infamous herbicide glyphosate. And, until Monday, the National Organic Program endorsed such behavior.

As reported by the Real Organic Project, “NOP head Jenny Tucker told the National Organic Coalition on several occasions that NO transition time is required for hydroponic to be certified.” In a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administrator Bruce Summers, the Organic Trade Association remarked, “[R]ecent reports indicate the NOP may be allowing its certifying agents to permit the use of glyphosate on certified organic farms that grow crops in containers.” It appears that in their dealings with organic certifiers, NOP consistently let silence take the place of regulation. In a letter to inspectors, staff, and container based growers, organic certifier Americert stated that the NOP was aware of their own and several other certifiers’ zero-transition practices, and provided no firm guidance as to whether they should abide by the OFPA rule. Americert concluded, “It appears that on this issue, we are left on our own to determine how to proceed.”

Fortunately, certifiers will no longer be left on their own, as the new guidance provides firm grounding for all future container system certification to abide by organic land management practices, for at least three years leading up to organic production. The decision to firm up the transition rule comes after appeals by the Organic Trade Association, the National Organic Coalition, the Organic Farmers Association, Beyond Pesticides, and other allied advocates for organic integrity.

While NOP’s clarification and stricter enforcement come as a welcome victory, their firm stance will only apply to as-yet uncertified operations. The memo explicitly excludes previously certified operations from regulation, grandfathering in even those operations whose land has been treated with prohibited chemicals within the last three years, including up to the very day of certification.

The confusion over how to organically manage container systems arose in the first place due to the relative novelty of allowing any container systems to be considered as “organic.” Beyond Pesticides and allied advocates for organic integrity question the basis for certifying any hydroponic operation as organic, regardless of their transition practices.

Hydroponic plants are grown without soil and fed entirely through manufactured nutrient solutions. Hydroponic operations rely on nutrient inputs that do not return to the system. Whether or not these inputs are organic products, the hydroponic practices themselves, as noted by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) in a recent rulemaking petition, fulfill zero out of the three core requirements that define “organic production” in OFPA: to “foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.” Soil is integral to organic production. Under OFPA, to be called organic, producers must engage in practices that actively support the rich, living biodiversity of the soil that sustains future production.

The U.S. is the only developed country still allowing hydroponics to fall under the organic label. Canada and Mexico prohibit hydroponics from organic, and the European Parliament voted to end the organic certification of hydroponic products in April 2018. With the U.S. regulatory gates open, industrial hydroponic operations have access to flood the organic market and, longtime organic producers warn, to push soil-based organic farmers out of business. “Hydroponic producers getting the benefit of the organic label without actually doing anything to benefit the soil undermines the standard and puts all soil-based organic farmers at an untenable economic disadvantage,” stated Kate Mendenhall of the Organic Farmers Association.

Organic growers and advocates warn that without a serious effort to protect it, the organic label could become wholly misleading with respect to its central tenets: prohibition of synthetic chemicals and commitment to soil improvement and biodiversity conservation.

Join Beyond Pesticides in the fight to protect organic integrity, and ultimately, to protect our future. Wholescale agricultural transformation is urgently needed to regain lost ground and ensure a future for ourselves and our children. Watch Jay Feldman’s (executive director of Beyond Pesticides) talk on organizing for organic integrity at the Real Organic Project March symposium. Contribute to the movement to protect the organic label by joining Beyond Pesticides. Stay abreast of new legal and regulatory developments through Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog.  To stay engaged with the organic rulemaking process, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

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

Sources: Real Organic Project, National Organic Standards Board

Hot Shot No Pest Strip placed near bagels and pastries in Starbucks store

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2019) A class-action lawsuit is accusing Starbucks stores in New York of misusing a highly toxic, carcinogenic pesticide near food, putting the health of customers and employees at risk.  “Stores throughout Manhattan have for many years been permeated with a toxic pesticide called Dichlorvos [DDVP], which is highly poisonous and completely unfit for use in proximity to food, beverages and people,” the suit reads.

According to the lawsuit, Hot Shot brand No Pest Strips were placed in food areas in violation of labels that prohibit the pesticide’s use in “the food/feed areas of food/feed processing or food/feed manufacturing or food/feed service establishments.” A pest control operator found the illegally placed products on a number of separate occasions, hidden under bagels or in pastry display cases, during a five year period from 2013 to 2018. This was not at only one location, but appeared to be a common occurrence at nearly every one of the 100+ stores serviced by the pest control operator.

The case brings to light a number of issues with the use of synthetic pesticides. The unsanitary conditions permitted to persist within Starbucks stores, per the pictures provided in the suit (see page 14), are indicative of an overreliance on synthetic pesticides to treat routine pest issues. This approach relies solely on a chemical solution to address pests, treating them as symptoms, while ignoring the root causes of pest problems, which can be more effectively addressed through proper sanitation, for example.

According to the suit, the pest control operator relayed the information on the illegal pesticide use to his manager, who subsequently alerted Starbucks. Numerous complaints were filed with Starbucks management, and the New York Department of Health cited the company for illegal pesticide use. Despite these warnings, the suit indicates that Starbucks’ Regional Quality Assurance Manager had admittedly, “failed to internalize ‘the importance of breaking this habit’ and instead continued to misuse DDVP in Manhattan-area stores with impunity.”

Stores continue to use the pesticide to this day, the suit alleges, “having made the decision that it is more cost effective to pay for the strips than clean up the underlying root cause of the infestations—the unsanitary conditions that pervade its Manhattan stores.”

The vast majority of common pest problems require no pesticide use at all. An organic pest management approach aims to correctly identify pests, monitor, determine action levels, keep records, and focus on prevention tactics. This approach emphasizes sanitation, structural repairs, proper food storage, and other methods that eliminate pest habitat.

Unsanitary conditions documented in lawsuit against Starbucks

Dichlorvos is an organophosphate insecticide with strong links to cancer. EPA indicates it has “suggestive” evidence of carcinogenicity, and it is listed as a carcinogen under California Prop 65. As Beyond Pesticides writes in its fact sheet on the chemical, “EPA has determined that the worst-case cancer risk to workers handling DDVP, even when wearing protective clothing, ranged up to 1/100 for exposures that amount (in many cases) to only a couple of weeks of work per year… concerning inhalation exposures encountered by ordinary consumers, EPA estimates that the cancer risk to people with No-Pest™ strips hanging in their homes may be as high as 8/1000.”

It is important to be reminded that this is a level of risk – 1 out of 100 applicators and 8 out of 1,000 home users contracting cancer – that EPA accepts as reasonable under its current review process that allows pesticides in the marketplace.

The chemical has a strong propensity to off-gas when used in “strips” similar to those in Starbucks stores, and apart from cancer concerns, poses acute risks to exposed individuals. It is easily absorbed by the body both through skin contact and food consumption. Like other pesticides in the organophosphate chemical class, DDVP inhibits a critical nervous system enzyme called acetylcholine esterase. Acute symptoms include headaches, stomach cramps, excessive salivation, muscle twitching, and in some cases delayed neuropathy.

Unsanitary conditions documented in lawsuit against Starbucks

Do not be like Starbucks. If you have a pest problem, address it early by internalizing good pest management practices into your daily routines. Make sure messes are cleaned up after they are made, food is stored in tightly sealed containers, water and dishes are not left out, floors are clear of food debris, leaky faucets are repaired, and that windows are tightly sealed and doors have door sweeps to prevent pest entry. This any other simple techniques can keep homes and businesses pest free. And in cases where, despite your best efforts, you do have a pest problem, check out Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe page for nontoxic practices to address the issue, and least-toxic pest control products that should be used only as a last resort.

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

Source: CBS News, Wigdor LLP, Class Action Complaint

(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2019) As the signs of environmental crises tied to pesticide use escalate and the need for action becomes more urgent, elected officials at the state level must step up to meet the challenges to protect biodiversity and ecosystems essential to life. Waiting on Congress to act allows precious time to pass without critically needed action. The White House fails to acknowledge scientific findings about adverse effects that threaten the sustainability of the environment and human survival. In the last several months, key pieces of science call for dramatic action to eliminate toxic pesticide use and put organic and sustainable practices in place.

Ask Your Governor to Issue an Executive Order to Protect the Ecosystems and Biodiversity of Your State.

*A 1,500-page assessment from the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity project — the IPBES [Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services] Global Assessment Summary for Policymakers is the most comprehensive look to date at the biodiversity crisis and its implications for human civilization. The findings, approved by an intergovernmental body of 132 member states, including the U.S., provide a devastating assessment of the state of biodiversity and of ecosystem services, which support the delicate balance of nature.

*The “crash” of pollinators is happening in a wider context of biological and biodiversity loss. The lack of attention to loss in insect populations broadly was identified in a dramatic November 18, 2018 New York Times article, “The Insect Apocalypse Is Here,” which called out the staggering attrition in insect populations during the last few decades. Here in the U.S., scientists discovered relatively recently that the population of monarch butterflies has fallen by 90% in the last 20 years, and that populations of the rusty-patched bumblebee (which used to be found in 28 states) dropped by 87% in the same period. Beyond Pesticides also noted the phenomenon in its coverage of a 2017 study by a German entomological society, which found a decline in total flying insect biomass in protected areas of the country of more than 75% over a 27-year period.

Governors, in issuing an executive order to protect biodiversity and survival of organisms essential to sustaining life, must manage public lands with practices that are compatible with ecosystem health. Last year, then-Governor of California Jerry Brown issued an executive order in tandem with a Biodiversity Initiative that recognizes the importance of state action to protect biodiversity. It recognizes that the state’s plants and animals co-exist to create the complex ecosystems upon which so much of California’s people and economy depend. The initiative is supported by a 2018-19 state budget allocation of $2.5 million, establishing a partnership with tribal groups, educators and researchers, the private sector, philanthropic groups and landowners. Although the California initiative does not specifically address the contribution of pesticides and chemical-intensive land management to biodiversity decline, based on scientific findings, eliminating toxic pesticide use and adopting an organic land management approach is key to the solution.

Ask Your Governor to Issue an Executive Order to Protect the Ecosystems and Biodiversity of Your State.

Letter to Governor

I respectfully implore you, in the face of scientific findings, to use your executive order power to establish an initiative to protect biodiversity and the ecosystems in our state. Waiting on Congress and the White House to act allows precious time to pass without critically needed action to address adverse effects that threaten the sustainability of the environment and human survival. In the last several months, key scientific findings call for dramatic action to eliminate toxic pesticide use and put organic and sustainable practices in place.

*A 1,500-page assessment from the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity project — the IPBES [Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services] Global Assessment Summary for Policymakers is the most comprehensive look to date at the biodiversity crisis and its implications for human civilization. The findings, approved by an intergovernmental body of 132 member states, including the U.S., provide a devastating assessment of the state of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services, which support the delicate balance of nature.

*The “crash” of pollinators is happening in a wider context of biological and biodiversity loss. The lack of attention to loss in insect populations broadly was identified in a dramatic November 18, 2018 New York Times article, “The Insect Apocalypse Is Here,” which called out the staggering attrition in insect populations during the last few decades. Here in the U.S., scientists discovered relatively recently that the population of monarch butterflies has fallen by 90% in the last 20 years, and that populations of the rusty-patched bumblebee (which used to be found in 28 states) dropped by 87% in the same period.  Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys, in their article “Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers,” in Biological Conservation, performed a comprehensive review of research on insect declines, revealing “dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world’s insect species over the next few decades.”

I urge that your executive order protect biodiversity and survival of organisms essential to sustaining life by managing public lands with organic practices that are compatible with ecosystem health. More broadly, please consider the executive order (bp-dc.org/biodiversity-order) and Biodiversity Initiative (bp-dc.org/biodiversity-action-plan), adopted last year in California, which recognize the importance of state action to protect biodiversity.

Thank you for your consideration.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2019) Research from Finland provides clear evidence that there is a positive relationship between organic animal farms and bird abundance. While chemical-intensive agriculture is currently a major driver of biodiversity loss worldwide, organic practices can, conversely, bolster wild populations. Furthermore, the research points to the value of scientific analysis to inform policy.

Researchers questioned whether agri-environment-climate schemes (AES), policy elements in the EU where farmers are rewarded for various practices that support biodiversity, are having an impact on the abundance of 46 bird species associated with farmland. They studied the effect of various AES measures related to bird species traits (e.g. diet, migration ecology, Red List status). Using citizen science data from local bird watchers and land use assessments, researchers utilized ArcGIS mapping tools and statistical analysis to quantify relationships among factors.

Organic livestock farming was the only AES measure that had a significant effect on bird abundance. Insectivorous birds as well as long-distance migrant species had the highest positive relationship to organic animal farms. In the discussion, the authors reason that organic animal farms with nutrient-rich, antibiotic-free manure likely increases insect abundance which in turn supports insectivorous and, to a lesser degree, omnivorous birds. Previous studies show cow presence (and, relatedly, their manure) being positively associated with grubby fodder for birds.

In contrast to the findings of this study, researchers in France recently measured a 30% decrease in bird populations in the French countryside over the past 15 years. Vincent Bregnatole, an ecologist and author of the study, told the Guardian, “There are hardly any insects left, that’s the number one problem.” They and others point to intensive pesticide use on monoculture farms as a primary culprit of insect demise.

According to the recent United Nations report on biodiversity, “Species loss is accelerating to a rate tens or hundreds of times faster than in the past.” Over 500,000 terrestrial species “have insufficient habitat for long-term survival” and are headed towards extinction unless habitats are restored.

Organic agriculture, and specifically integrated livestock, clearly offers a viable commercial alternative to chemically-intensive practices. Not only does it support biodiversity (ex. soil biota, insect populations, birds), this practice is a potential solution for the climate crisis. Project Drawdown, a nonpartisan non-profit focused on carbon sequestration, states that if managed grazing could be amped up worldwide it could sequester over 16 gigatons of carbon by 2050. Europe provides a model for farming policy incentives, and the directive of the researchers of this paper includes moving to evidence-based, regional targeting to improve ecological outcomes.

It bears mention that as the organic industry grows the USDA organic label is under threat from large agribusiness seeking to benefit from a burgeoning market. Beyond Pesticides advocates on behalf of family organic dairy farmers who believe in the access to pasture rule, which is vital to providing the benefits named above and protecting small farms.

Former Wisconsin dairy farmer Jim Goodman wrote in the Washington Post, “When six dairy farms in Texas feed their thousands of cows a diet of organic grain and stored forage, with no discernible access to a blade of grass, they end up producing more milk than all 453 organic dairy farms in Wisconsin combined. Then they ship it north, undercutting our price. We can’t make ends meet and are forced out of the business. We played by the rules, but we no longer have a level playing field.” As Beyond Pesticides promotes organic as a solution, it is critical to simultaneously act as a watchdog and strengthen the integrity of the organic label.

Contribute to the movement to protect the organic label by staying abreast of new legal and regulatory developments through Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog.  Stay engaged with the organic rulemaking process through Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

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

Sources: PLOS, Anthropocene

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2019) Last week, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agreed to a 2020 deadline for reaching a decision on protection status for monarch butterflies under the Endangered Species Act. This agreement comes nearly five years after the filing of a petition by conservationists with the Center for Biological Diversity and Center for Food Safety led to the launch of an ongoing status review in 2014. While FWS deliberates, monarch butterflies continue their staggering, decades-long population decline, perhaps for the last of their decades.

In the 1990s, the eastern monarch population numbered nearly one billion butterflies, and the western population numbered more than 1.2 million. Last year’s winter counts recorded around 93 million eastern monarchs and fewer than 200,000 western monarchs. That loss is “so staggering that in human-population terms it would be like losing every living person in the United States except those in Florida and Ohio,” Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement to Live Science. Recent studies project that if current trends continue, both eastern and western monarch populations face migratory collapse within the next 20 years.

FWS is no stranger to the threats facing monarch butterflies. A 2017 study conducted by FWS on the butterfly’s dwindling population indicated that western monarchs have an extinction risk of 86% within the next 50 years. Within only 20 years, the risk is still 72%. “This study doesn’t just show that there are fewer monarchs now than 35 years ago,” said study author Cheryl Schultz, PhD, an associate professor at Washington State University Vancouver. “It also tells us that, if things stay the same, western monarchs probably won’t be around as we know them in another 35 years.”

Monarchs have lost an estimated 165 million acres of breeding habitat in the United States to herbicide spraying and development. Their caterpillars only eat milkweed, but the plant has been devastated by increased herbicide spraying in conjunction with corn and soybean crops genetically engineered to tolerate direct spraying with herbicides. In addition to herbicides, monarchs are threatened by neonicotinoid insecticides that are toxic to young caterpillars.

“Monarch butterflies clearly warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act, and we urge the Service to propose them for listing by the end of next year,” said George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety.

Monarchs are not alone among butterflies, pollinators, or more broadly, insects, facing imminent risk of population collapse and ultimate extinction if the status quo of pesticide use continues. As documented in the 2019 study, Worldwide Decline of the Entomofauna, in a study of 576 species of butterflies in Europe, researchers found that 80% of species are negatively impacted by herbicide and pesticide use. A California study of butterfly populations monitored from 1972-2012 captured a 65% drop in species counts beginning sharply in 1997, following the introduction of neonicotinoid insecticides to the state in 1995 (Forister et al., 2016).

Insecticides and herbicides both play a critical role in driving monarch butterfly and other insect declines. According to the 2019 review,

In terms of toxicity, insecticides are by far the most toxic to all insects and other arthropods, followed by fungicides but not herbicides (Mulé et al., 2017; Sánchez-Bayo and Goka, 2014). Herbicides, however, reduce the biodiversity of vegetation within the crops and in surrounding areas through drift (Egan et al., 2014) and runoff, thus impacting indirectly on the arthropod species that depend upon wild plants, which either disappear completely or decline significantly in numbers (Goulet and Masner, 2017; Marshall et al., 2003). Thus, the application of herbicides to cropland has had more negative impacts on both terrestrial and aquatic plants and insect biodiversity than any other agronomic practice (Hyvonen and Salonen, 2002; Lundgren et al., 2013).

While specialist losses are alarming, losses of generalist species are even more so. Generalist pollinator species such as the peacock butterfly and v-moth have experienced major declines in the last half century. Once-ubiquitous freshwater generalists (among them stoneflies, caddisflies, mayflies and dragonflies) are rapidly disappearing from North American and European waterways. Such generalist declines signal a systemic, chemical-induced problem that extends beyond niche habitat loss.

The evidence implicating pesticide use in the loss of insect biodiversity is both astounding and unsurprising. Insecticides kill insects, often indiscriminately and with devastating consequences for biodiversity, ecosystem stability, and critical ecosystem services. Herbicides and chemical fertilizers extinguish invaluable habitat and forage critical to insect survival. Taken together, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers make large and growing swaths of land unlivable for vast numbers of insect species and the plants and animals they sustain.

Beyond Pesticides holds the position that toxic pesticides can be eliminated in organic land management systems, and that pesticide reduction is not sufficient in the face of the escalating crisis. Join Beyond Pesticides in advocating for proven, least-toxic practices that do not harm irreplaceable wildlife. For additional steps you can take to protect monarchs and other pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage. Together we can commit to complete transformation of our agricultural system to stave off the extinction of the monarch butterfly, among thousands of other species similarly threatened by pesticide use.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity/Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, May 29, 2019) A soil health monitoring study in England finds that an alarming 42% of surveyed fields are deficient in a wriggly measurement—earthworm populations. Over half the farmers recruited in this citizen science evaluation said they planned to change their soil management practices as a result of the earthworm monitoring results.

The #60minworms method, named for the time it takes to conduct, is to dig a soil pit and place the soil onto a mat, then sort out the earthworms into a bucket. After sorting, the total number of earthworms is counted, and juveniles are returned to the soil. Adults are sorted and recorded by type using a simple key (surface worms: epigeic—small and red, anecic—pale or green; deep-burrowing worms: endogeic—heavily pigmented and large). This is repeated ten times using a W-style sampling pattern across a field.

Jacqueline Stroud, PhD, the study author and soil scientist, developed survey booklets to distribute to volunteer farmers. Recruitment methods included events, workshops, and Twitter. Farmers conducted tests on their own private land during a 6-week window in 2018. They recorded their results in the given booklets and sent the information for analysis. A total of 126 fields were surveyed. Worm data was compiled and analyzed, and the social component of farmer responses was closely monitored, recorded, and responded to.

Earthworms are excellent gauges of soil health and have a direct relationship to plant productivity; they break down crop residues, incorporate surface organic matter into the soil, and mix organic and mineral components together to form stable aggregates that benefit spring emergence and sequester carbon. Low population counts are indicative of overworked soils that are more likely to erode and lose nutrients. This study’s results show that tillage has a significant impact on surface level (epigeic and anecic) worms, which is cause for concern because these worms have slow population recovery rates (~8 cocoons per earthworm per year).

Farmers were highly invested in the community science. 100% of the participants said they would do the survey again, and 100% of them would recommend the survey to others. The study names a goal of developing a cost-effective way of helping farmers monitor their own fields and analyze the quality of their soil which, based on survey results, was extremely effective. As farmers in the U.S. are struggling, this methodology, which has hence been shortened to  #30minworms, provides a great example of outreach and connection to farmers about soil quality.

One way to protect soil biota, other wildlife, and the ecosystem as a whole is to support organic agriculture over conventional, chemical-intensive farming. A 2015 study found that glyphosate, the controversial and toxic active ingredient in Roundup, reduces activity and reproduction in two species of earthworms and increases soil nutrient concentrations to dangerous levels. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as good land stewardship.

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

Sources: PLOS, The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, May 28, 2019) In yet another attack by the Trump administration on science, public health, and children and families, as well as another wink and nod to industries whose products harm, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) are planning to end their support for research centers that do important scientific investigation related to children’s health.

Tell Your Congressional Representatives to Insist on Funding for Children’s Environmental Health Centers.

EPA has announced that it will no longer renew its grants to these centers. As of July, they will lose a huge portion of the funding that has allowed them to deploy hundreds of scientists — in genetics, toxicology, and neurodevelopment — on unusually comprehensive and longitudinal studies of what factors in children’s experiences and communities impact their health. The work of these centers has been critical in uncovering the relationships between children’s exposures to toxic chemicals, including pesticides, and diseases and health anomalies later on in their developing years.

According to Tracey Woodruff, PhD, who runs the University of California, San Francisco Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals Children’s Center: When EPA weighs the harms of a chemical against its benefits, ignorance “works out perfectly for industry. . . If EPA doesn’t know, it counts for zero.” The centers are very concerned that EPA’s withdrawal of support will force them to stop important, long-term research projects.

The studies conducted by these centers often begin before birth and follow subjects through childhood and into adulthood, yielding unusually rich data that can track, for example, environmental exposures early in life and subsequent and related health problems years later. In addition, these longitudinal studies can adapt to the changing mixes of exposure risks children may face over 20 years or so as they grow from newborns to young adults. Ruth Etzel, MD, a pediatrician at EPA specializing in children’s environmental health, notes, “Twenty years ago, what we were studying is not the same as what we’re studying today. We have to study children now, in their communities.”

During the past 20+ years, centers have operated in California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, often producing results that lead to reform in policies and practices, and ultimately, improved health outcomes.

The withdrawal of funding by EPA will likely mean reductions in such programs, and such losses may put at risk both the health of neighboring communities and the relationships the research centers have built with them. Pediatricians and researchers find the work of the centers to be critical for communities. NIEHS has said it is unable, without significant changes to the centers’ programs, to make up the shortfall caused by EPA’s abandonment of grant support for the centers — the agency is trying to capitalize on the research the centers have completed by supporting their community outreach, and is searching for ways to keep study cohorts together going forward.

Tell Your Congressional Representatives to Insist on Funding for Children’s Environmental Health Centers.

Letter to Congress
I am writing to ask you to insist on continuation of government funding for university-based Children’s Environmental Health Centers. The Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) are planning to end their support for research centers that do important scientific investigation related to children’s health.

The studies conducted by these centers often begin before birth and follow subjects through childhood and into adulthood, yielding unusually rich data that can track, for example, environmental exposures early in life and subsequent and related health problems years later. In addition, these longitudinal studies can adapt to the changing mixes of exposure risks children may face over 20 years or so as they grow from newborns to young adults. Ruth Etzel, MD, a pediatrician at EPA specializing in children’s environmental health, notes, “Twenty years ago, what we were studying is not the same as what we’re studying today. We have to study children now, in their communities.”

During the past 20+ years, centers have operated in California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, often producing results that lead to reform in policies and practices, and ultimately, improved health outcomes. Examples include:

* A University of Southern California center study of air pollution connections to obesity and poor health that resulted in state and federal guidelines to improve air quality standards and urban planning decisions, including restrictions on building of schools near major roads.

* The Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Center at Dartmouth College discovered that infants who ate rice products had higher urinary levels of arsenic; this led to a proposed FDA (Food and Drug Administration) limit on inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereals.

* The Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai (Icahn School of Medicine) Institute for Exposomic Research found prenatal exposure to organophosphates to be negatively associated with children’s cognitive development (particularly perceptual reasoning) as early as age 12 months, and continuing through early childhood.

* The Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health reported in 2012 on research showing that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos prenatally had lower IQs and altered brain structure compared to those with low exposures.

Please insist on funding for the Children’s Environmental Health Centers.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 24, 2019) University of California (UC) President Janet Napolitano announced, on May 15, a temporary ban on the use of glyphosate on all of UC’s 10 campuses. Set to begin on June 1, the ban will affect the more than 200,000 students in the UC system, and countless other staff, faculty, and visitors to the campuses. In announcing the ban, the university cited “concerns about possible human health and ecological hazards, as well potential legal and reputational risks associated with this category of herbicides.” (There are exceptions to the temporary suspension, such as uses for “agricultural operations, fuel-loaded management programs to reduce wildfire risk, native habitat preservation or restoration activities and research that requires glyphosate-based herbicides.”) The UC ban is the latest in a snowball-turning-avalanche of actions and decisions on glyphosate — the active ingredient in the Monsanto (now owned by Bayer AG) products Roundup and Ranger, and in many other herbicides.

The suspension of glyphosate use at UC comes in large part as a result of the campaign, Herbicide-Free UC — which began as Herbicide-Free Cal, founded by student-athletes Mackenzie Feldman and Bridget Gustafson. The students became active on pesticides issues when they discovered that herbicides were in use around the volleyball court on which they and other athletes spent countless hours. Begun when the women were juniors at UC Berkeley, the Herbicide-Free UC group worked with campus staff to enact a pilot program, on multiple parcels on the campus, that used chemical-free, mechanical practices for weed management. Ms. Feldman’s advocacy included getting a university Regent interested in the issue.

After she attended the first, bellwether trial related to glyphosate — DeWayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company — Ms. Feldman said she realized that she “needed to expand this campaign beyond Berkeley. This work is too important not to do. If I can prevent even one groundskeeper from getting cancer . . . then I must.” Prior to the announcement of the UC ban, Ms. Feldman had commented, “It would be irresponsible for the University of California to not take action at this point, especially after three separate juries in the state of California have decided that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer.”

Chair of the UC Davis student government’s Environmental Policy and Planning Commission, Alice Beittel, said, “It’s crazy to expose students, faculty and staff — especially groundskeepers — to a host of toxic weed killers. This is a step in the right direction, but there is more work to be done to make all UC campuses herbicide-free. Many UC campuses still use herbicides listed under Proposition 65 that are known to cause cancer, birth defects, and reproductive harm.”

Herbicide-Free UC weighed in, saying, “There are many alternatives to harmful pesticide and herbicide use. There are, of course, some costs associated with adopting organic practices. Yet, when faced with the alternatives of legal liability, and the human cost of harming members of the UC community with these practices, we think the costs of maintaining our current policies far outweigh the costs of switching to organic land management practices. We will keep working with the University of California to transition each campus to all-organic land management practices.”

Glad of the UC decision, but nevertheless looking to the next step, Ms. Feldman said, “Dang, we did it,” and “We’re getting a lot of people to email the president and tell her that it’s not enough.” She added, “We are encouraged that the UC President and Regents have made the decision to stop using glyphosate on UC campuses, but there is no need to wait for more research to make the ban permanent. The science is in — glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor that doesn’t belong on campus.” In personal communication with the Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, she added, “We want to ban all Prop 65 chemicals and have the UCs commit to transition to organic on all campuses.”

Beyond Pesticides welcomes the news of the UC ban, and shared it via Twitter, but of course, advocates for ending the use of the compound, and of all toxic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, et al., and a transition to organic land management. Other science, public health, and/or environmental advocacy groups concur.

The “snowball-turning-avalanche” has picked up momentum from developments in a variety of corners. Beyond Pesticides has covered many, if not most, of such developments, which include legal decisions (see below), research demonstrating the dangers of glyphosate exposure (including epigenetic impacts, carcinogenicity, and other disease risks), the work of public and environmental health advocates, and efforts by localities to rein in or ban use of glyphosate herbicides.

A recent example includes the late March moratorium on the use of glyphosate-based herbicides issued by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Coincidentally, the board announced this step — which cited the need for public health and environmental professionals to determine whether the compound is safe for use, and to explore alternative methods for vegetation management — on the same day that the Hardeman decision (see below) came down.

On the legal front have emerged three recent and highly publicized court cases. In addition to the August 2018 landmark decision for the plaintiff in DeWayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company — which case resulted in awards of $39 million in compensation and $250 million in punitive damages, though a higher-court judge later reduced the punitive award to $39 million — glyphosate has experienced two subsequent defeats in the courts.

In April 2019, a case brought in the District Court for the Northern District of California (in San Francisco), Hardeman v. Monsanto, was decided for the plaintiff, who had developed Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) after 25 years of exposure to Roundup. The jury found that Roundup’s design was defective, the product lacked sufficient cancer warnings, and the manufacturer (Monsanto) had been negligent, awarding the plaintiff $5.3 million in compensation and an additional $75 million in punitive damages.

In mid-May 2019, the Pilliod v. Monsanto case was decided for the plaintiffs, a couple in their seventies who had used Roundup for decades. Four years apart, each of them was diagnosed with NHL; awards to the plaintiffs in the case amounted to $2.055 billion. Notably, the jury, in a California state court in Alameda, made its decision on the basis of evidence of both glyphosate’s carcinogenicity and Monsanto’s role in suppressing and discrediting independent findings on Roundup’s toxicity.

These legal decisions have additional impacts, apart from those on plaintiffs, the hit to glyphosate’s acceptance as safe, and Bayer’s reputation. These decisions are costing the company significant amounts of money in the literal damages mandated, and potentially, in future product sales. The total amount for which Bayer is on the hook — for just those three cases — is $2,213,300,000. The company is also enduring other fiscal headwinds. Since the acquisition of Monsanto in June 2018, shareholder concerns about litigation — because approximately 13,000 glyphosate cases are pending — have caused Bayer’s value to drop by more than 40%.

Were that not enough bad news for the agro-chemical giant, insurers are starting to recognize the actuarial downsides of underwriting businesses that traffic in glyphosate products. In light of the spate of litigation against Bayer for its glyphosate products, insurers are beginning to bail on such businesses. In March 2019, Harrell’s, a major retailer that sells pesticides and other related products, announced it would stop selling glyphosate products because it could not find an insurer to underwrite the company if it kept those items in its product inventory.

The May 21 appearance, in The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, of a full-page advertisement attempting to counter the shifting view of glyphosate may be evidence of Bayer’s increasing distress in the face of myriad challenges to that line of its products. The ad includes a lead-in saying, “Tested for 40 years. Approved for 40 years. Used safely for 40 years.” It goes on to assure the public that it is “deeply committed to the safe use of our products, to the communities where they are used and to our planet” — a sentiment that is belied by the findings of a plethora of research scientists.

As emerging science continues to underscore established findings on the dangers of glyphosate, the urgency of the need to shift to organic agriculture and land management approaches grows. Developments continue to unfold across sectors — legal, business insurance and commercial, scientific, et al. — in the trajectory toward the elimination of the use of the chemical. The UC suspension is an encouraging step on the way to a permanent ban on the UC campus (and all campuses), as well as more broadly. Beyond Pesticides is hopeful that the “tipping point” on glyphosate is not too far off, and advocates for a ban on the toxic compound and a rapid transition to organic agricultural practices that do not threaten human health, the food supply, and ecological systems that are the bases of life on the planet.

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

Sources: https://abc7news.com/society/uc-campuses-issues-temporary-glyphosate-suspension/5306055 and https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/food-water-watch-applauds-uc-president-and-regents-temporary-halt-use-toxic-herbicide and https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/university-of-california-system-halts-use-of-glyphosate-herbicide/

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2019) On Monday in the conclusion of a lawsuit, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the final notices of cancellation on the registration of twelve neonicotinoid pesticide products in the Federal Register, each of which contains chlothianidin or thiamathoxam as an active ingredient. The decision to pull these products from the market was required as part of a legal settlement under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in December 2018 of a successful case, Ellis v. EPA, brought by beekeeper Steve Ellis and a coalition of other beekeepers and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides. The case establishes a legal precedent in which the court required action to address the bee-toxic effects of pesticides; however, the effect of the settlement and its impact on overall neonicotinoid and other systemic insecticide use is limited.

For all but two of the twelve canceled products, a nearly identical surrogate remains actively registered. Furthermore, the fact remains that there are hundreds more products containing the active ingredients targeted by the lawsuit that have not been removed in any capacity – 106 products containing clothianidin and 95 containing thiamethoxam remain untouched on the market. Breaking down the impacts of the EPA ruling even further, there are several eerily similar classes of insecticides that operate the same way neonicotinoids do that remain untouched by regulation. The sulfoxamine insecticide sufloxaflor, for example, is functionally identical to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, which negatively impacts foraging and immune responses in bees. Even at low levels, sulfoxaflor impairs reproduction and reduces bumblebee colony size.

In the originating lawsuit, filed in 2013, plaintiffs made a number of claims related to EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides, its poor oversight of the bee-killing pesticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and its practice of “conditional registration,” as well as labeling deficiencies. Plaintiffs noted that the subject pesticides “have been shown to adversely impact the survival, growth, and health of honey bees and other pollinators vital to U.S. agriculture” and have “harmful effects on other animals, including threatened and endangered species.”

“The federal pesticide law is a weak statute and offers limited protection for bees, the ecosystem, and public health” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “People are taking matters into their own hands by adopting practices around their homes and community-wide and purchasing products that are protective of bees, the environment and people,” he continued.

In May 2017, a federal judge ruled that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act when it issued 59 neonicotinoid insecticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for pesticide products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney rejected the claims of intervenors (pesticide producers) that the plaintiffs had not established causation between the subject pesticides and the harm to plaintiffs. But rather than order EPA to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) — a requirement when a pesticide is registered (so as to reduce risks to endangered species) — the judge directed the parties, including the plaintiffs, defendant EPA, and intervenor Bayer CropScience, to move forward with a settlement conference to resolve the disputes. The result: a compromise solution with, at best, weakly protective impacts. The court ruling denied plaintiffs’ claims under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the nation’s pesticide control law, that EPA had a statutory duty to suspend cited bee-toxic pesticides, as established in an emergency legal petition filed in March 2012. The judge said that the court lacked jurisdiction due to conflicting laws or EPA’s actions were not “approvals” subject to court challenge.

Systemic insecticide-treated seeds are pervasive and widely used across the agricultural landscape, home gardens, and public spaces. Of the two most widely planted crops in the U.S., between 79 to 100 percent of corn seed and 34 to 44 percent of soybean seed were treated with neonicotinoids in 2011. A conservative estimate of the area planted with neonic-treated corn, soybean, and cotton seed totals just over 100 million acres, or 57 percent of the entire area for these crops.

Pollinators are far from the only victims of ubiquitous systemic insecticide contamination. In a recent avian risk assessment, EPA scientists found that neonicotinoids present in treated seeds exceeds the agency’s level of concern for certain birds by as much as 200-fold. A 2017 study by researchers at the University of Saskatchewan confirmed that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids – the equivalent of just four treated canola seeds, for example – are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction and become emaciated. Recent research uncovered the endocrine-disrupting health impacts of imidacloprid on white-tailed deer, leaving the disturbing open question: if large mammals are feeling the impacts, are humans as well?

In light of the shortcomings of federal action to protect pollinators, wildlife, and people, it is left up to the public to establish safe havens by creating pesticide-free habitat and educating others to do the same. Get involved at the community level to pass policies that protect imperiled pollinators. Use Beyond Pesticides’ resources and educational materials, including our BEE Protective doorknob hangers to get the word out. See Beyond Pesticides’ series celebrating unsung wild pollinator heroes through the Polli-NATION campaign.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2019) Glyphosate weed killers may be contributing to the growing worldwide epidemic f non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a condition that causes swelling of the liver, and can eventually lead to cirrhosis, cancer, or liver failure. Researchers at the University of California (UC) San Diego found that higher levels of glyphosate detected in urine corresponded significantly with individuals that have also been diagnosed with NAFLD. Advocates are urging lawmakers at every level to respond to the accumulating science on the danger of glyphosate herbicides, ban their use, and adopt policy changes that put into place organic land management practices.

“There have been a handful of studies, all of which we cited in our paper, where animals either were or weren’t fed Roundup or glyphosate directly, and they all point to the same thing: the development of liver pathology,” said Paul J. Mills, PhD, professor and chief in the Department of Family Medicine and Public Health at UC San Diego School of Medicine in a press release. “So I naturally thought: ‘Well, could it be exposure to this same herbicide that is driving liver disease in the U.S.?’”

Dr. Mills and his team received urine samples from 93 patients enrolled in a separate UC San Diego study on NAFLD, who were either diagnosed or determined to be clear of the disease through a liver biopsy. Both diagnosed and disease-free individuals had their urine tested for the presence of glyphosate residue. Controlling for a range of confounders, including race, body mass index, age, ethnicity, and diabetes status, researchers found that glyphosate residue in urine was significantly higher in individuals with NAFLD.

With glyphosate still the most popular herbicide used in the U.S., exposure to the chemical is alarmingly widespread. “The increasing levels [of glyphosate] in people’s urine very much correlates to the consumption of Roundup [glyphosate] treated crops into our diet,” said Dr. Mills.

He cautions that the results need further follow up, and there may be other pesticides in the environment leading to similar disease outcomes. “There are so many synthetic chemicals we are regularly exposed to,” Dr. Miller notes. “We measured just one.”

The research team plans to continue this work by switching subjects to an all-organic diet, and observing any changes in liver functioning as a result.

Studies show that the majority of American likely have glyphosate in their urine, a trend that has increased in lock step with increased use of the product. Research conducted in Germany found that 99.6% of individuals had at least some level of glyphosate in their urine, with over 75% at amounts higher than what the European Union allows in drinking water.

But, changing diet appears to have a critical effect on the level of glyphosate and other pesticides that can be detected in one’s body. A study released earlier this year found that consumers who switched from a conventional to organic diet saw pesticide levels in their urine drop dramatically, averaging a 60% reduction for the 14 pesticides tested. And these results confirmed earlier studies, including one in 2014, and two in 2015 (1,2), which found similar results.

Past studies conducted on laboratory animals have also found links between glyphosate and liver impacts. A 2015 study found that chronically exposing rats to ultra-low doses of glyphosate in drinking water results in tissue and organ damage, including changes to gene expression within the liver and kidneys. And a 2017 study, which also fed miniscule doses of glyphosate weed killer to rats, found an increased likelihood that exposed animals would develop NAFLD.

As new health impacts pile on top of established science linking glyphosate products to cancer, there is an urgent need to rapidly mobilize a movement towards organic food production. Only then will be able to eliminate the risks synthetic pesticides pose to public health. Take action today by sending a letter to your Governor urging them to stop the use of glyphosate and adopt safer practices. Read more about the benefits of organic agriculture on Beyond Pesticides’ Why Organic webpage.

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

Source: UC San Diego Health Press Release, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2019) As farmers nationwide are facing extreme stressors and either consolidating or retiring, organic is going against the grain. Despite overall declines in the number of U.S. farms, the number of organic farms increased 27% between 2012 and 2017, according to new data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.

The value of organic sales in 2017 was $7.2 billion, and the average value of sales per farm has increased a remarkable 84% since 2012. Laura Batcha, the executive director of the Organic Trade Association, told Bloomberg that young families are among the drivers in the organic market as they seek to avoid residues of chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones on food.

Organic products fetch a higher price point than conventional. Indiana farmer Joe Mills can sell his organic food-grade corn for about $10.50 a bushel, while chemical-intensive sells for about $3.50/bushel. Mr. Mills notes, “Yes, it’s economical, but there is a huge learning curve and a mindset change. We relied on commercial fertilizers and pesticides for so long.” At the same time, the benefits and affordability of organic food are critical to the market, as consumers consider their purchasing choices. Read the Beyond Pesticides’ report Low Food Prices: The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food.

Many farmers, faced with five years of low commodity prices and an onslaught of problems, are experiencing unsustainably low income. Extreme weather and shifting climate are rapidly increasing—these are devastating threats for under-protected and economically vulnerable farms.

Even before the mass flooding of the Midwest earlier this year, net farm income had fallen nearly 50% since 2013. Trump administration trade tariffs have exacerbated the problem; the trade war with China has lasted nearly ten months and is having a significant impact on producers. In the first quarter of 2019, farm income declined by $11.8 billion. Farm debt has increased rapidly, reaching levels last seen during the 1980’s. Soybeans are the most valuable U.S. agricultural export, and China is the country’s number one buyer. China has drastically reduced its purchases of American exports and, as the trade war escalates, there is evidence that they may stop purchasing agricultural products altogether.

Experts are concerned about the mental health of farmers and farmworkers, who have a statistically higher suicide rate than other occupations. The flooding situation is especially dire, as the Chicago Tribune explains: “Now, the floods may have stripped many farmers’ land of the soil it needs to grow crops, which could take years to return to production. Some farmers have been storing grain for several years in anticipation of better prices, but floodwaters eroded their land and contaminated the grain. Neither USDA disaster programs nor insurance policies cover stored grain. Crop insurance may cover inputs, such as chemical and fertilizer, but it won’t provide additional income to support households.”

As an aging farming population assesses the current troubles and their return on investment, many are choosing to retire. In contrast, organic producers are generally younger and more likely to be full-time farmers. 17% of organic producers are age 34 or less, more than double the number in the same age bracket for all farms (8%).

In a time of economic and environmental upset, organic agriculture is a viable commercial alternative that can help to mend the planet through carbon sequestration, and elimination of water, air, and soil contamination associated with pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use. U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree wrote for Civil Eats, “…in our new push for climate solutions—from the ambitious Green New Deal to our recommitment to the Paris Agreement—farmers and ranchers need to have a seat at the table.” While food production contributes approximately a quarter of annual greenhouse gases, “Those who produce our food also hold the potential to reverse that statistic,” Rep. Pingree said.

Organic farms will also be more resilient to the threats of a changing climate: healthy soil and soil cover help prevent nutrient and water loss, making them better prepared to withstand floods and droughts. The Rodale Institute reports that organic plots produce yields up to 40% higher than chemically-intensive plots in times of drought because and organic soil system retains more water.

Now, more than ever, it is critical to invest in America’s organic farms—not only is it a good financial decision, it could help save the planet. See Beyond Pesticides’ extensive resources on organic for more.

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

Sources: Bloomberg, Chicago Tribune, Reuters, Civil Eats

(Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2019) The bans of chlorpyrifos in three important agricultural states show the support for a ban of the chemical nationwide. Hawai’i banned chlorpyrifos a year ago with a unanimous vote of the legislature. New York and California banned it this month. States have been pursuing bans since the Environmental Protection Agency rescinded its proposed ban in 2017.

Tell Your Governor to Ban Neurotoxic Pesticides and Support Organic; Send Thanks to Your Governor in Hawai’i, New York, and California

Like other organophosphate pesticides, chlorpyrifos has been linked to damaging and often irreversible health outcomes in workers, pregnant women, and children. A widely used pesticide, agriculture companies annually spray six million pounds on crops like citrus, apples, and cherries.  In the same family as Sarin gas, the substance was initially developed prior to World War II as a chemical weapon. It can overstimulate the nervous system to cause nausea, dizziness, and confusion. With very high exposures (accidents or spills), it can cause respiratory paralysis and even death. When applying the chemical to fields, workers must wear protective garments such as respirators. Workers are then blocked from entering the fields from 24 hours up to 5 days after application due to the chemical exposure risk.

A group of leading toxics experts, who published a paper in the journal PLOS Medicine on their research on organophosphate exposure during pregnancy and impacts on child development, are calling for a ban on organophosphate pesticides. The study evaluates current science on the risks of this class of compounds, produced by Corteva Agriscience (formerly Dow AgroSciences). Its conclusions warn of the multitude of dangers of organophosphates for children, and makes recommendations for addressing these risks. The experts conclude that: (1) widespread use of organophosphate (OP) pesticides to control insects has resulted in ubiquitous human exposures; (2) acute exposures to OPs is responsible for poisonings and deaths, particularly in developing countries; and (3) evidence demonstrates that prenatal exposures, even at low levels, put children at risk for cognitive and behavioral deficits, and for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Organic production is now a $45.2 billion enterprise and provides a viable alternative to the use of toxic pesticides. In addition to banning organophosphates, states should promote organic agriculture by providing assistance for transitioning farmers and requiring organic management on all state-owned land.

Tell Your Governor to Ban Neurotoxic Pesticides and Support Organic; Send Thanks to Your Governor in Hawai’i, New York, and California

Letter to Governor

The bans of chlorpyrifos in three important agricultural states show the support for a ban of the chemical nationwide. Hawai’i banned chlorpyrifos a year ago with a unanimous vote of the legislature. New York and California banned it this month. Statewide bans are necessary because the Environmental Protection Agency rescinded its proposed ban in 2017.

Like chlorpyrifos, other organophosphate pesticides have been linked to damaging and often irreversible health outcomes in workers, pregnant women, and children. A widely used pesticide, agriculture companies annually spray 6 million pounds on crops like citrus, apples, and cherries.  In the same family as Sarin gas, the substance was initially developed prior to World War II as a chemical weapon. It can overstimulate the nervous system to cause nausea, dizziness, and confusion. With very high exposures (accidents or spills), it can cause respiratory paralysis and even death. When applying the chemical to fields, workers must wear protective garments such as respirators. Workers are then blocked from entering the fields from 24 hours up to 5 days after application due to the chemical exposure risk.

A group of leading toxics experts, who published a paper in the journal PLOS Medicine on their research on organophosphate exposure during pregnancy and impacts on child development, are calling for a ban on organophosphate pesticides. The study evaluates current science on the risks of this class of compounds, produced by Corteva Agriscience (formerly Dow AgroSciences). Its conclusions warn of the multitude of dangers of organophosphates for children, and makes recommendations for addressing these risks. The experts conclude that: (1) widespread use of organophosphate (OP) pesticides to control insects has resulted in ubiquitous human exposures; (2) acute exposures to OPs is responsible for poisonings and deaths, particularly in developing countries; and (3) evidence demonstrates that prenatal exposures, even at low levels, put children at risk for cognitive and behavioral deficits, and for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Organic production is now a $45.2 billion enterprise and provides a viable alternative to the use of toxic pesticides. In addition to banning organophosphates, the state should promote organic agriculture by providing assistance for transitioning farmers and requiring organic management on all state-owned land.

Please ban all uses of chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate insecticides in the state. Please promote organic agriculture by providing assistance for transitioning farmers and requiring organic management on all state-owned land

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2019) After two decades of co-sponsoring and co-funding research centers that do important scientific investigation related to children’s health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) are planning to end their support. EPA has announced that it will no longer renew its grants to these centers. As of July, they will lose a huge portion of the funding that has allowed them to deploy hundreds of scientists — in genetics, toxicology, and neurodevelopment — on unusually comprehensive and longitudinal studies of what factors in children’s experiences and communities impact their health. The work of these centers has been critical in uncovering the relationships between children’s exposures to toxic chemicals, including pesticides, and diseases and health anomalies later on in their developing years.

This announcement represents yet another attack by the Trump administration on science, public health, and children and families, as well as another wink and nod to industries whose products harm. Says Tracey Woodruff, who runs the University of California, San Francisco Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals Children’s Center: When EPA weights the harms of a chemical against its benefits, this “works out perfectly for industry. . . . If EPA doesn’t know, it counts for zero.” The centers are very concerned that EPA’s withdrawal of support will force them to shutter important, long-term research projects.

The studies conducted by these centers often begin before birth and follow subjects through childhood and into adulthood, yielding unusually rich data that can track, for example, environmental exposures early in life and subsequent and related health problems years later. In addition, these longitudinal studies can adapt to the changing mixes of exposure risks children may face over 20 years or so as they grow from newborns to young adults. Ruth Etzel, MD,  a pediatrician at EPA specializing in children’s environmental health, notes, “Twenty years ago, what we were studying is not the same as what we’re studying today. We have to study children now, in their communities.”

During the past 20+ years, centers have operated in California, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. The centers produce work that often leads to reform in policies and practices, and ultimately, improved health outcomes. Examples include:

• A University of Southern California center study of air pollution connections to obesity and poor health resulted in state and federal guidelines to improve air quality standards and urban planning decisions, including restrictions on building of schools near major roads.
• The Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Center at Dartmouth College discovered that infants who ate rice products had higher urinary levels of arsenic; this led to a proposed FDA (Food and Drug Administration) limit on inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereals.
• The Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai (Icahn School of Medicine) Institute for Exposomic Research — a co-convenor with Beyond Pesticides of the recent 37^th Annual Forum — was an early investigator into the impacts of organophosphate pesticides (such as chlorpyrifos) on children. In 2011, a center research team found prenatal exposure to organophosphates to be negatively associated with children’s cognitive development (particularly perceptual reasoning) as early as age 12 months, and continuing through early childhood. Beyond Pesticides has covered ensuing research on chlorpyrifos, the mounting demand for its removal from the market, and various legislative attempts to achieve that.
• The Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health reported in 2012 on research showing that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos prenatally had lower IQs and altered brain structure compared to those with low exposures. The center’s work also informs an ongoing lawsuit brought by environmental groups seeking to force EPA to ban the pesticide. The Columbia center has tracked hundreds of kids in New York City since 1998, collecting samples not only of urine and blood, but also, of air in children’s homes — all in service of identifying health effects of chemicals and pollutants. The journal Nature reports that, “The centre’s findings influenced New York City’s decision in 2018 to phase out diesel buses, and its staff members teach schools and community groups about the harmful chemicals and pollution that kids encounter each day.”

These centers conduct research that informs policy, but they also work — as does the Columbia center — with local communities to educate people about their findings, and about how residents can protect themselves more effectively from the chemical, particulate, or other pollution in their surrounds. Many of those communities are Environmental Justice communities that are affected disproportionately by such pollution and by a relative lack of mediation and of attention to the issue.

The withdrawal of funding by EPA will likely mean reductions in such programs, andm such losses may put at risk both the health of neighboring communities and the relationships the research centers have built with them. A pediatrician at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, Aparna Bole, MD says, “I cannot think of an equivalent network that could do the same work.” Linda McCauley, RN, PhD, an environmental health researcher at the Children’s Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta, notes, “All these community stakeholders have been such critical partners for this work nationally and there’s no funding. They’re the ones being hurt the most.”

NIEHS has said it is unable, without significant changes to the centers’ programs, to make up the shortfall caused by EPA’s abandonment of grant support for the centers. Kimberley Gray of NIEHS indicates that the agency is trying to capitalize on the research the centers have completed by supporting their community outreach, and is searching for ways to keep study cohorts together going forward.

The Trump EPA (and other federal agencies) are active on numerous fronts to diminish the role of science, and some scientists see this latest move as evidence of the administration’s withdrawal from protection of human — never mind environmental — health. In September 2018, EPA put Dr. Etzel,  head of its Office of Children’s Health Protection on administrative leave; she reports that she’s never been told why EPA suspended her, and has never heard from the agency since being given the notice of leave. EPA has not replaced her.

Dr. McCauley believes that that such moves are designed to benefit the chemical industry by disabling research that might point to the need for more-robust regulation. She comments, “That’s how this administration is working. They can be effective by slowing things down to a crawl.” See Beyond Pesticides Children and Schools webpage.

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

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01491-1?fbclid=IwAR02CO1fm6jt_wThq7rqqmSP41pcFVK-TT2xIwvQ0U8Pamtwsm7vhjqzRNA

© Ryan Brennecke/The Bend Bulletin

(Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2019)  Use of the tree-killing herbicide aminocyclopyrachlor (ACP) is now restricted in Oregon, according to rulemaking finalized last week by the state’s department of agriculture (ODA). While an important step in the right direction, many environmentalists are perplexed by the state’s decision not to proceed with a ban on all uses of the inherently toxic chemical, which has killed thousands of old-growth pine trees along state scenic highways. Over five thousand comments from Oregonians and concerned individuals across the country urged ODA to scrap its convoluted proposed rule and simply eliminate the chemical from state commerce.

While advocates will continue to urge ODA to completely eliminate ACP use, the current restrictions did not come without a fight. Public meetings were attended by representatives from the chemical’s manufacturer, Bayer. The company strongly opposed any restrictions on its product, and acted to delay the original implementation date for ODA’s rule.

Oregon had intended to finalize the rule in late March. “We were pretty much set to file the final paperwork,” said Oregon pesticide program manager Rose Kachadoorian to The Bulletin. But through the work of its corporate lawyers, Bayer was able to track down an arcane Oregon law that allowed the company to delay implementation for 90 days. Bayer’s sought, in a last-ditch effort, to reverse or weaken the initial proposed rules. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the company’s efforts had the effect of permitting ACP use during the 90 day period, during which a currently unknown amount of the chemical may have been applied.

The first-in-the-country restriction on tree-killing ACP has garnered the attention of other states. “This certainly could set a precedent; other states would have to look at their authority to regulate the use beyond the federal requirements,” said Dale Mitchell of ODA’s pesticide program. According to advocates, while ODA’s approach is laudable, other states would be better served by completely banning ACP, eliminating any possibility it will continue to destroy old-growth forests.

ODA’s final rule prohibits ACP from being sprayed in natural and restoration areas, along the inner and outer banks of ditches and canals, and on rights-of-way. However, the rule leaves in place the ability to spray the chemical in areas that “do not exceed more than 5% of an acre” once a year, in order to control state or county-listed noxious weeds. This is slightly different than ODA’s initial proposed rule, which indicated that only “spot treatments” could occur, and contained the statement that “no individual treatment area many exceed nine square feet.”

Advocates calling for a ban are concerned that any continued use of ACP will result in ongoing impacts similar to those that led to multi-million dollar lawsuits against Dupont, when it produced the herbicide under the brand name Imprelis.

Roadside right of way management doesn’t need to rely on any toxic synthetic herbicide use in the first place, given the availability, and economic viability, of alternative practices. As Beyond Pesticides has documented, planting native vegetation, and using mechanical, biological, and other nontoxic vegetation control methods are effective solutions. Rather than sending a crew to spray a pesticide, weed whackers and other machinery can address problem vegetation. Some regions have enlisted the help of goat herds, which can clear noxious weeds at the same time as they improve soil health, preserve ground and surface water from contamination, and eliminate any chance of herbicide resistance. Recently in Maine, utility company Central Maine Power, which maintains a corridor of 53 miles of right-of-way, announced it would not be using insecticides and herbicides in its maintenance.

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has become increasingly antagonistic to states taking action to restrict federally registered pesticides. But in light of unique environmental conditions within states, officials have a duty to align regulations in a way that best protects the environment for their resident’s health, enjoyment, and economic well-being. For more information about alternatives to roadside pesticide spraying, see Beyond Pesticides article, The Right Way to Vegetation Management.

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

Source: Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Public Broadcasting

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2019) On Monday, a California jury awarded plaintiffs in the third federal Roundup case over $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages. The jury found that Monsanto “engaged in conduct with malice, oppression or fraud committed by one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto.”

Plaintiffs Alva and Alberta Pilliod, a married couple in their seventies, used Roundup weed killer since the 1970s to maintain their yard and other owned properties. The couple did not wear protective gear when using Roundup because Monsanto marketed the product as “safe.” Alva was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) in 2011; Alberta’s diagnosis followed in 2015.

The Pilliod v. Monsanto jury came to their decision based on evidence, not only of the herbicide’s carcinogenicity, but also of Monsanto’s role in suppressing and discredit.ing independent findings regarding Roundup toxicity. In an interview with U.S. Right to Know’s Carey Gillam, co-lead trial counsel Michael Miller said, “Unlike the first two Monsanto trials, where the judges severely limited the amount of plaintiffs’ evidence, we were finally allowed to show a jury the mountain of evidence showing Monsanto’s manipulation of science, the media and regulatory agencies to forward their own agenda despite Roundup’s severe harm to the animal kingdom and humankind.”

That glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer is by now a matter of scientific consensus. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen. In response to resistance from the European Food Safety Authority, 94 expert scientists published an article in support of IARC’s methodologies and findings. Since 2015, several more publications have added significant weight to the body of evidence supporting glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. A 2018 meta-analysis of studies on glyphosate suggested “a compelling link between exposures to GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] and increased risk of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma]. A 2019 University of Washington study found that glyphosate exposure increases the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by as much as 41%. As of July 7, 2017, glyphosate is listed as a cancer-causing chemical under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). This requires cancer warning labels be placed on end-use glyphosate products in California.

The Pilliod trial adds to the growing list of major wins for plaintiffs suffering from cancer caused by Monsanto’s “malice, oppression or fraud.” In the summer of 2018, California groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson won a $289 million jury verdict against Monsanto for his development of NHL after consistent exposure to Roundup. The jury awarded him $39 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages, finding that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression.” That amount was later amended by the judge to a total $78 million. In the second federal court case, again in California, the jury found unanimously that Edwin Hardeman’s development of NHL was substantially caused by Roundup.

More so than previous trials, the Pilliod trial highlighted evidence for collusion between Monsanto and top EPA officials to defend against the onslaught of Roundup cancer trials. Jurors were presented with communications uncovered through a 2017 FOIA request, in which EPA officials responded to requests from Monsanto to effect a delay in the 2015 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry review of glyphosate. The Pilliods’ attorneys also presented new documents, including a report attached to a July 2018 email between the strategic intelligence firm Hayklut and Monsanto. As covered by U.S. Right to Know, the report includes the reassurance,

“A domestic policy adviser at the White House said, for instance: ‘We have Monsanto’s back on pesticides regulation. We are prepared to go toe-to-toe on any disputes they may have with, for example, the EU. Monsanto need not fear any additional regulation from this administration.”

In spite of mounting consensus on Roundup’s carcinogenicity, on May 8, EPA released a proposed interim decision for glyphosate’s registration review stating that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” In a statement expressing its intent to appeal the case, Bayer referenced that the jury verdict “conflicts directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision released just last month.”

“The fact that multiple federal cases have found that Roundup caused plaintiffs’ cancer is a testament to the weight of independent scientific evidence supporting the link between glyphosate-based herbicides and NHL,” said Sarah Bluher, science and regulatory manager at Beyond Pesticides. “EPA’s failure to acknowledge that weight of evidence, and their active role in protecting Monsanto’s financial interests, are a threat to national public health,” Ms. Bluher continued.

Pilliod v. Monsanto is the first of more than 250 consolidated California Roundup cases to proceed to trial. Bayer/Monsanto still faces more than 13,000 similar pending lawsuits nationwide. Stay abreast of the latest legal, regulatory, and scientific pesticide news by following the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog.

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

Sources: USRTK Roundup Trial Tracker, Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman PC, Consumer Safety

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2019) Your voice is needed to stop the use of two specific antibiotics, streptomycin and oxytetracycline, whose uses in agriculture are under EPA review. Thank you to those who, last week, told Congress and EPA to ban antibiotic use in agriculture – to help stop the worldwide crisis in bacterial resistance to antibiotics needed for medical purposes in life-threatening cases.

Tell EPA and Congress to Ban Streptomycin and Tetracycline in Agriculture

In spite of growing bacterial resistance, these two antibiotics are used for important medical purposes. Tetracycline is used for many common infections of the respiratory tract, sinuses, middle ear, and urinary tract, as well as for anthrax, plague, cholera, and Legionnaire’s disease, though it is used less frequently because of resistance. Streptomycin is used for tuberculosis, tularemia, plague, bacterial endocarditis, brucellosis, and other diseases, but its usefulness is limited by widespread resistance.

The unnecessary use of these antibiotics in agriculture must be stopped to protect their efficacy for medical purposes. The good news is that organic management practices do not use these antibiotics in crop production and therefore their use is unnecessary with smart sustainable farming practices.  The EPA docket is accepting comments on these two registrations through Friday, May 17. You can sign on to our petition by completing today’s action. If you’d like to take an extra step, please feel free to submit your own comment to EPA using the language from our petition.

Beyond Pesticides will submit the petition below to EPA. When you send your letter to Congress today, you are also signing on to our petition and adding strength to our public comment.

Re: Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0687
These comments are submitted on behalf of the undersigned citizens who are concerned about the antibiotic crisis.

EPA has failed to address new information in areas critical to public health and the environment relating to the proposed interim registrations for streptomycin and oxytetracycline. Therefore, registration of streptomycin and tetracycline should not continue.

Since the 2006 review, there has been a dramatic expansion of research into the microbiome, resulting in a new understanding of the critical roles of the microbiome in regulating such diverse processes as metabolism, immunity, and neurodevelopment. EPA does not assess risks due to disruption of the gastrointestinal microbiome. EPA also discounts risks to workers.

Crucially, use of streptomycin and oxytetracycline in agriculture contributes to the growing crisis in antibiotic resistance. Many bacterial infections are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, resulting in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, and the need for more expensive or hazardous medications. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of the use of antibiotics. Bacteria evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance.

Use of antibiotics on fruit trees contributes to resistance to the antibiotic in human pathogens. The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be directly sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely “vertical” –that is from parent to progeny– but can be “horizontal” –from one bacterial species to another. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria or commensal gut bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens. Spraying with these antibiotics can also promote multiple drug resistance –making other antibiotics ineffective as well.

When bacteria on the plants and in the soil are sprayed with an antibiotic, those with genes for resistance to the chemical increase compared to those susceptible to the antibiotic. Resistance genes exist for both streptomycin and tetracycline, and spraying with these chemicals increases the frequency of resistant genotypes by preferentially killing those susceptible to the antibiotic. Those genes may be taken up by other bacteria by a number of mechanisms, collectively known as “horizontal gene transfer.”

The guts of humans and other animals provide efficient incubators for antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance increases first in commensal bacteria—the bacteria that naturally live within our bodies—and may then be transferred to pathogens. Thus, the argument that human pathogens are not present in orchards sprayed with antibiotics is irrelevant to the actual development and spread of bacteria resistant to antibiotics. The number of bacteria in the gut is large with a large gene pool offering many mechanisms of resistance, and every exposure to antibiotics offers new opportunities for selection for resistance.

Antibiotics used on animals and crops are washed into waterways, where they find bacteria-rich environment perfect for encouraging the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Other organisms are also at risk of undue hazards wrought by disruption of microbes key to metabolism, immunity and survival, which are not given adequate weight by EPA. In particular, EPA lacks data for honey bee adult acute oral and larval endpoints. In particular, the gut microbiome plays a critical role in health and immunity in adult honey bee workers. A recent study found that “pollen reverses decreased lifespan, altered nutritional metabolism, and suppressed immunity in honey bees (Apis mellifera) treated with antibiotics.” (Li, et al., 2019)

EPA must eliminate use of streptomycin and tetracycline in agriculture in order to protect human health and the environment.

Tell EPA and Congress to Ban Streptomycin and Tetracycline in Agriculture

U.S. Congress:

EPA is now considering the continued registration of two antibiotics in agriculture, streptomycin and oxytetracycline, and I am writing to ask you to voice your concern and request that these uses be stopped in an effort to avert the worldwide crisis in bacterial resistance to antibiotics that are needed for medical reasons in life-threatening cases. Since these antibiotics are not permitted in organic crop production, it is clear that we do not need them to grow food when smart sustainable farming practices are adopted. Please help save antibiotic use of streptomycin and oxytetracycline for their intended medical purposes.

Crucially, use of streptomycin and oxytetracycline in agriculture contributes to the growing crisis in antibiotic resistance. Many bacterial infections are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, resulting in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, and the need for more expensive or hazardous medications. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of the use of antibiotics. Bacteria evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance.

Use of antibiotics on fruit trees contributes to resistance to the antibiotic in human pathogens. The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be directly sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely “vertical” –that is from parent to progeny– but can be “horizontal” –from one bacterial species to another. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria or commensal gut bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens. Spraying with these antibiotics can also promote multiple drug resistance –making other antibiotics ineffective as well.

When bacteria on the plants and in the soil are sprayed with an antibiotic, those with genes for resistance to the chemical increase compared to those susceptible to the antibiotic. Resistance genes exist for both streptomycin and tetracycline, and spraying with these chemicals increases the frequency of resistant genotypes by preferentially killing those susceptible to the antibiotic. Those genes may be taken up by other bacteria by a number of mechanisms, collectively known as “horizontal gene transfer.”

Organic practices that prohibit streptomycin and oxytetracline use in crop production are now widely used in the U.S. and around the world. Whether in apple, peach, pear, or citrus production or to produce beans, celery, peppers, tomatoes, or potatoes, these antibiotics are not essential, given the ability to grow these crops productively and profitability under organic management practices. Farmers can take advantage of the assistance available to them to transition to organic practice. So, there is no reason not to take action on this critical public health matter.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, May 13, 2019) The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed four lawsuits last week challenging the Trump administration’s failure to release a trove of documents detailing how the administration is regulating dangerous pesticides, especially as they relate to endangered species. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a set of proposed changes last week that would dramatically reduce protections for the nation’s most endangered plants and animals from pesticides known to harm them. The proposals ignore the real-world, science-based assessments of pesticides’ harms, instead relying on arbitrary industry-created models.

The EPA proposals would, for example, gut protections for endangered plants that are pollinated by butterflies and other insects by ignoring the fact that animals routinely move back and forth between agricultural areas and places where endangered species live.

The proposals follow intensive efforts by Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to halt federal work on protecting wildlife from pesticides. They were released over a year after a draft biological opinion that was scuttled by the Trump administration found that the loss of pollinators from the insecticide chlorpyrifos would put hundreds of endangered species on a path to extinction.

The so-called “refinements” will make it easier for the EPA to claim that pesticides have no effects on endangered species, allowing pesticides to remain on the market without common-sense restrictions on their use to protect endangered species.

The proposal disregards the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and ignores the mandate of the Endangered Species Act to give imperiled wildlife and plants the benefit of the doubt when evaluating the range of impacts caused by exposure to pesticides. Records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that the refinements were driven by political-level appointees at the EPA, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce and the White House.

The May 7 CBD lawsuits, involving 20 separate Freedom of Information Act requests, were filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The suits seek documents the Center requested from EPA, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service and Council on Environmental Quality.

“Federal agencies that are supposed to be protecting human health, wildlife and our environment from dangerous pesticides have fallen into a terrible pattern of withholding critical information from the American people,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center’s environmental health program. “It’s ridiculous we have to sue to obtain public documents that are key to helping us understand how these dangerous poisons are, and are not, being regulated.”

The lawsuits
The first lawsuit seeks documents on the actual use of pesticides to evaluate the harm those pesticides cause to endangered species.

As reported by the New York Times, high-level Trump administration political appointees improperly halted the release of a scientific study detailing the harm that chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon cause to nearly 1,400 endangered plants and animals. In the scramble to justify this interference, they claimed to need additional actual use data, borrowing from the tobacco’s industry’s strategy of perpetually claiming a need for more data.

The second lawsuit seeks records of meetings between agency staff, including high-level Trump appointees and Croplife America, a pesticide industry trade group that has repeatedly lobbied to eliminate protections for endangered species from pesticides.

The third lawsuit seeks documents on the activities of an interagency working group of high-level Trump appointees created by disgraced former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to weaken protections for endangered species.

The final lawsuit seeks records on whether the EPA has taken any steps to put in place conservation measures recommended by the National Marine Fisheries Service to prevent chlorpyrifos from jeopardizing the continued existence of 37 endangered species, including salmon, sturgeon and highly imperiled Puget Sound orcas.

The agencies have failed to disclose the documents responsive to these requests.

Documents previously obtained by the Center revealed that Fish and Wildlife Service scientists found that chlorpyrifos, the controversial pesticide linked to brain damage in children, jeopardizes the continued existence of 1,399 endangered plants and animals.

But at the request of pesticide companies, the Trump administration has worked to undermine the findings of government scientists and delay all further efforts to assess and reduce the impacts of chlorpyrifos and two other dangerous pesticides on endangered species.

“While the Trump appointees running these agencies scurry to do the bidding of the pesticide industry, endangered species like the San Joaquin kit fox are heading toward extinction,” said Ms. Burd. “You can bet that when we finally get these documents, they’ll reveal exactly why Team Trump worked so feverishly to hide them from public view.”

Background
The Fish and Wildlife Service was required to complete an analysis called a “biological opinion” on the impacts of three pesticides — chlorpyrifos, malathion and diazinon — as part of a legal settlement with the Center. In that settlement the agency agreed to assess by Dec. 31, 2017 the harms the three widely used pesticides pose to protected plants and animals, as required by the Endangered Species Act.

The assessments were on track to be completed and released to the public in 2017.

But shortly after contributing $1 million to President Trump’s inauguration, Dow Chemical, the maker of chlorpyrifos, directly requested that the assessments be scuttled.

In May 2017, the Service announced that the draft biological opinion assessing the three pesticides’ harms was nearly complete and would be ready for public comment within months.

As Fish and Wildlife Service career staffers were preparing to make the biological opinion available for public comment, on Oct. 25, 2017, they briefed Trump’s political appointees on the result of the agency’s nearly four years of rigorous scientific review. The officials briefed included then acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Greg Sheehan, then acting director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

After that meeting the consultation process halted, just as Dow had requested. The draft biological opinion was not released for public comment as promised. The agency missed the deadline it had agreed to in its settlement with the Center, and completion of the biological opinion has been indefinitely postponed.

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2019) The Earth, its natural systems, and as many as a million species are at enormous risk from human activity, says a new assessment from the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity project — the IPBES Global Assessment Summary for Policymakers. The net finding might be expressed as: humans are not immune from the sequelae of biodiversity loss; the ecosystem functions on which human lives depend are in increasingly dire straits.

The 1,500-page report, convened by IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), is the most comprehensive look to date at the biodiversity crisis and its implications for human civilization. A summary of the report’s findings, approved by representatives from the U.S. and other member countries, was released in Paris on May 6; the complete report is expected later in 2019. It is of note and commendable that the summary, though lengthy, is digestible for a lay audience.

IPBES is an intergovernmental body of 132 member states, established in 2012, that assesses the state of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services such diversity provides to societies. The group also provides reporting to policymakers on those assessments, and on the dynamics (i.e., causes and impacts) between human activity and the state of biodiversity and ecosystem services. This 2019 report emerges from three years of work by 145 experts from 50 countries, and is informed by 15,000 scientific studies and other resources, including, pioneeringly, indigenous and local knowledge.

Project co-chair Eduardo Brondizio, Ph.D. of Indiana University remarked at a press conference on the release, “We have reconfigured dramatically life on the planet.” Thomas Lovejoy, Ph.D., George Mason University Professor of Biology and Senior Fellow at the United Nations Foundation — who is sometimes called the godfather of biodiversity for his research efforts — commented, “Humanity unwittingly is attempting to throttle the living planet and humanity’s own future. . . . The biological diversity of this planet has been really hammered, and this is really our last chance to address all of that.”

Sir Robert Watson, Ph.D., a British, and former NASA scientist who headed the report, noted that “the findings are not just about saving plants and animals, but about preserving a world that’s becoming harder for humans to live in. ‘We are indeed threatening the potential food security, water security, human health and social fabric’ of humanity, Watson said, adding, ‘Business as usual is a disaster.’”

Frontline nations, such as small islands, who are typically hit first and hardest by the losses, are reported to have wanted a more fulsome report, while the U.S. and other developed countries were, as one might expect, more cautious. That said, Rebecca Shaw, Ph.D., who observed the final negotiations as chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund, noted that all members could agree that “we’re in trouble.” She added, “This is the strongest call we’ve seen for reversing the trends on the loss of nature.”

The report’s key messages are:

1. nature and its vital contributions to people, which together embody biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are deteriorating worldwide
2. direct and indirect drivers of change have accelerated during the past 50 years
3. goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors
4. nature can be conserved, restored and used sustainably while simultaneously meeting other global societal goals through urgent and concerted efforts fostering transformative change

Among the summary’s alarming conclusions are that, across most of the globe’s major habitats, the plenitude of plants and animals has dropped by 20% or more during the past century. Human activities — agriculture; land conversion (logging, deforestation); extractive operations (mining, fossil fuel “harvesting”); overfishing; poaching; failure to control rampant native species; and pollution of all sorts — are changing the face and dynamics of the natural world at a rate “unprecedented in human history.” PBS reports, from the UN assessment, “‘Species loss is accelerating to a rate tens or hundreds of times faster than in the past,’ and more than half a million species on land ‘have insufficient habitat for long-term survival’ and are likely to go extinct . . . unless their habitats are restored [soon]. The oceans are not any better off.”

IPBES asserts that this decline in biodiversity threatens society’s ability to meet people’s basic needs, and that current patterns of production and consumption are unsustainable. Pesticides are, of course, one of the contributors to loss of biodiversity. The report notes: “Harmful economic incentives and policies associated with unsustainable practices of fisheries, aquaculture, agriculture (including fertilizer and pesticide use)[italic by Beyond Pesticides], livestock, forestry, mining and energy (including fossil fuels and biofuels) are often associated with land/sea-use change and overexploitation of natural resources, as well as inefficient production and waste management.” Beyond Pesticides underscores one of the “changes in production of . . . food” the report endorses — the transition away from pesticide-laden agricultural practices and toward sustainable agriculture — which Beyond Pesticides believes must be organic.

Exacerbating this biodiversity loss is, unsurprisingly, the climate emergency, which is heating the planet through human activities that dump greenhouse gases (GHGs), notably carbon dioxide and methane, into our proportionally paper-thin atmosphere. The summary elaborates on key message #2: “The rate of global change in nature during the past 50 years is unprecedented in human history. The direct drivers of change in nature with the largest global impact have been (starting with those with most impact): changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change [italic by Beyond Pesticides]; pollution; and invasion of alien species.“

The GHG load in the atmosphere, when combined with the other levers of human damage to the environment, is helping drive a rapidly increasing number of species toward extinction — and sooner, rather than later. “Human actions threaten more species with global extinction now than ever before,” the report concludes, estimating that “around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken.” The report further projects that, absent major conservation efforts across the planet, biodiversity loss — particularly in the tropics — will accelerate at least through 2050.

The IPBES report manages to balance its dire message with some buoyancy. It pulls no punches about the gravity of the situation, but does point to possibility for arresting and redirecting the current entropy: “The negative trends in biodiversity and ecosystem functions are projected to continue or worsen in many future scenarios in response to indirect drivers such as rapid human population growth, unsustainable production and consumption[,] and associated technological development. In contrast, scenarios and pathways that explore the effects of a low-to-moderate population growth, and transformative changes in production and consumption of energy, food, feed, fibre and water, sustainable use, equitable sharing of the benefits arising from use and nature-friendly climate adaptation and mitigation, will better support the achievement of future societal and environmental objectives.”

The report directs policymakers toward pathways that can generate “the transformative change needed to reverse these alarming trends.” Such paths include more and more-resolute international cooperation; reversal of perverse — i.e., crisis-exacerbating — incentive structures; use of more-holistic decision making; and strengthened implementation of environmental laws and policies. It also sets out a number of nature-based solutions that address some of the identified challenges:
• reducing deforestation, restoring forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems, and agricultural practices that build soil organic matter could together contribute more than a third of the total efforts needed by 2030 to keep global warming below 2 degrees

• better use of biodiversity in agriculture (such as pollinators, natural enemies of pests and soil biodiversity) could increase yields while reducing the use of harmful chemicals
• protecting coral reefs and mangroves protects coastal areas from extreme weather events

The released (summary) report itself provides a comprehensive conclusion: “Societal goals — including those for food, water, energy, health and the achievement of human well-being for all, mitigating and adapting to climate change and conserving and sustainably using nature — can be achieved in sustainable pathways through the rapid and improved deployment of existing policy instruments and new initiatives that more effectively enlist individual and collective action for transformative change. Since current structures often inhibit sustainable development and actually represent the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, such fundamental, structural change is called for. By its very nature, transformative change can expect opposition from those with interests vested in the status quo, but such opposition can be overcome for the broader public good. If obstacles are overcome, commitment to mutually supportive international goals and targets, supporting actions by indigenous peoples and local communities at the local level, new frameworks for private sector investment and innovation, inclusive and adaptive governance approaches and arrangements, multi-sectoral planning and strategic policy mixes can help to transform the public and private sectors to achieve sustainability at the local, national and global levels.”

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

Sources: https://www.ipbes.net/sites/default/files/downloads/spm_unedited_advance_for_posting_htn.pdf

and https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/climate/biodiversity-extinction-united-nations.html?emc=edit_na_20190506&nl=breaking-news&nlid=30934893ing-news&ref=headline

(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2019) On Wednesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed interim decision on glyphosate’s registration review, ignoring widespread scientific consensus on the herbicide’s carcinogenicity and instead restating the agency’s firm position that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

EPA’s bold statement stands in stark contrast to scientific consensus to the contrary. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen. In response to resistance from the European Food Safety Authority, 94 expert scientists published an article in support of IARC’s methodologies and findings.

Since 2015, several more publications have added significant weight to the body of evidence supporting glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. A February 2018 meta-analysis of studies on glyphosate suggested “a compelling link between exposures to GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] and increased risk of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma]. A February 2019 University of Washington study found that glyphosate increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by as much as 41%.

Despite attempts by current and former EPA top officials to “kill” their report, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a agency at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released its first draft on the Toxicological Profile for Glyphosate last month, including top-line findings supporting the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

“The EPA decision defies the preponderance of independent scientific findings on the cancer causing properties of glyphosate and Roundup, putting food consumers, gardeners, farmers, farmworkers, and groundskeepers in harms way.” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “At the same, EPA supports the use of this hazardous chemical, farmers and land managers are finding that the chemical, with its weed resistance problems and adverse impact on soil organisms, is not an effective tool and not necessary in organic systems,” Mr. Feldman continued.

Notably, scientific consensus on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity is strong enough to have supported historical wins in a set of recent court cases alleging that exposure to Roundup caused plaintiffs’ non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). In the summer of 2018, California groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson won a $289 million jury verdict against Monsanto for his development of NHL after consistent exposure to Roundup. The jury awarded him $39 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages, finding that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression.” That amount was later amended by the judge to a total $78 million. Most recently, in another court case, again in California, the jury found unanimously that Edwin Hardeman’s development of NHL was substantially caused by Roundup; the case moves next to award of damages to the plaintiff.

“EPA and Monsanto continue to defy the science, and deny glyphosate’s carcinogenic threat,” said Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst at Center for Food Safety. “Trump’s EPA is apparently twisting the science in a vain attempt to help Monsanto defend itself against the many pending glyphosate-cancer lawsuits,” he added.

In defense of their stance against IARC’s conclusions, EPA claims that its cancer evaluation is more transparent than IARC’s, citing that “EPA also solicited public comment on its full human health and ecological risk assessment for glyphosate.” Simultaneously, writing with regard to the 238,290 comments received, authors note, “The comments did not result in changes to the agency’s risk assessments.”

Cancer is far from the only health impact demonstrably linked to exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide formulations. Beyond Pesticides has covered the relationship of glyphosate (and the adjuvant ingredients in formulations) to cancer, endocrine disruption, reproduction, and renal and hepatic damage, not to mention its toxicity to fish and other aquatic organisms. A December 2018 Washington State University study determined that Washington residents living nearby to areas treated with the herbicide are one-third likelier to die prematurely from Parkinson’s disease. Most recently, researchers at Washington State University found that glyphosate is linked to multi-generational adverse health effects including prostate, ovarian, and kidney diseases.

Moreover, glyphosate-based herbicides are far from the only health-threatening pesticides that EPA allows to remain on the market. EPA’s latest act in the glyphosate saga is a nod toward larger looming issues of transparency and accountability in the agency tasked with regulation so foundational to public health and well-being.

Beyond Pesticides remains determined to advance the cause of environmental protection, and looks forward to engage with community members organizing to advance local regulations and policies in the face of stubborn opposition on the federal front. Join Beyond Pesticides today and enter a network of advocates working together to build a future we can live in. Join the campaign to ban Roundup.

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

Source: Center for Food Safety

`
(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2019) The spread of antibiotic resistance is a health care crisis of major proportions and requires a moratorium on the use of antibiotics in agriculture. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) call antibiotic resistance “one of the world’s most pressing public health problems.” Many bacterial infections are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, resulting in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, and the need for more expensive or hazardous medications. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of the use of antibiotics. Bacteria evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance.

Tell EPA and Congress to save antibiotics for important medical uses and eliminate use as pesticides.

In spite of the spread of antibiotic resistance, the antibiotics used in plant agriculture are both important for fighting human disease. Tetracycline is used for many common infections of the respiratory tract, sinuses, middle ear, and urinary tract, as well as for anthrax, plague, cholera, and Legionnaire’s disease, though it is used less frequently because of resistance. Streptomycin is used for tuberculosis, tularemia, plague, bacterial endocarditis, brucellosis, and other diseases, but its usefulness is limited by widespread resistance.

Use of antibiotics on fruit trees can contribute to resistance to the antibiotic in human pathogens. The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely “vertical” –that is from parent to progeny– but can be “horizontal” –from one bacterial species to another. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria or commensal gut bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens.

When bacteria on the plants and in the soil are sprayed with an antibiotic, those with genes for resistance to the chemical increase compared to those susceptible to the antibiotic. Resistance genes exist for both streptomycin and tetracycline, and spraying with these chemicals increases the frequency of resistant genotypes by killing those susceptible to the antibiotic and leaving the others. Those genes may be taken up by other bacteria by a number of mechanisms, collectively known as “horizontal gene transfer.”

The guts of humans and other animals provide efficient incubators for antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance increases first in commensal bacteria—the bacteria that naturally live within our bodies—and may then be transferred to pathogens. Thus, the argument that human pathogens are not present in orchards sprayed with antibiotics is irrelevant to the actual development and spread of bacteria resistant to antibiotics. The number of bacteria in the gut is large –often more than 10¹⁴ bacteria of several hundred species—with a large gene pool offering many mechanisms of resistance, and every exposure to antibiotics offers new opportunities for selection for resistance.

Antibiotics from use on animals and crops are washed into waterways, where they find another environment perfect for encouraging the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Aquatic environments are rich in bacteria, providing another place where pathogens can obtain genes for resistance.

It is important to eliminate uses of antibiotics in agriculture that can contribute to antibiotic resistance in human pathogens. Instead, EPA has been increasing those uses and fails to count antibiotic resistance as a health risk to humans.

Tell EPA to save antibiotics for important medical uses and eliminate use as pesticides.

Letter to EPA Administrator and Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs:

The spread of antibiotic resistance is a health care crisis of major proportions. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) call it “one of the world’s most pressing public health problems.” Many bacterial infections are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, resulting in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, and the need for more expensive or hazardous medications. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of the use of antibiotics. Bacteria evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance.

It is important that EPA recognize the importance of antibiotic resistance as a human health threat. Antibiotics that are used to fight human disease should not be used as pesticides, where they can pose serious threats to human health. We implore EPA to fully consider the spread of antibiotic resistance through horizontal gene transfer, as resistant pathogenic bacteria spread throughout the environment.

Please eliminate pesticide products containing antibiotics used to fight human diseases.

Thank you.

Letter to Congress:

The spread of antibiotic resistance is a health care crisis of major proportions. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) call it “one of the world’s most pressing public health problems.” Many bacterial infections are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, resulting in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, and the need for more expensive or hazardous medications. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of the use of antibiotics. Bacteria evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance.

It is important that EPA recognize the importance of antibiotic resistance as a human health threat. EPA must eliminate uses of antibiotics in agriculture that can contribute to antibiotic resistance in human pathogens. Instead, EPA has been increasing those uses and fails to count antibiotic resistance as a health risk to humans. Please ask EPA to fully consider the spread of antibiotic resistance through horizontal gene transfer, as resistant pathogenic bacteria spread throughout the environment.

Please tell EPA Administrator Wheeler and Office of Pesticide Program Director Keigwin that antibiotics that are used to fight human disease should not be used as pesticides, where they can pose serious threats to human health.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May, 7, 2019) Last week, the New York State legislature voted to phase out and eventually ban the use of the neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos. The vote, 44-18 in the state Senate and 94-50 in the Assembly, is still awaiting the Governor’s signature, who is expected to sign the measure. As evidence of harm continues to accumulate, scientists have called for a ban, and a legal case works its way through the courts, pressure is mounting on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to once and for all remove this harmful pesticide from use.

New York’s legislation sets implementation dates that leapfrog a similar law banning chlorpyrifos that passed in Hawai’i last year. Although Hawai’i’s law takes effect beginning in July of this year, the state may provide temporary use permits for the chemical until December 2022. New York also phases in restrictions, first prohibiting aerial applications beginning January 2020, then prohibiting all use except on apple trees starting January 2021. The chemical will be completely banned for use in New York in December 2021.

Chlorpyrifos is a highly toxic insecticide that has been linked to damaging and often irreversible health outcomes, particularly for pregnant mothers and their children, who are at risk of learning disabilities, including lowered IQ, developmental delay, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Recent evidence shows that the original data used to register this chemical was fundamentally flawed in its assessment of health risks.

Other states are also considering their own chlorpyrifos bans. In Maryland, a chlorpyrifos bill that passed in the state House of Delegates was not taken up for a vote in the Senate. In California, a bill passed its first committee hearing in early April. Bills are also being considered in Oregon and Connecticut.

Overlaying this state level activity is legislation at the federal level. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) has introduced S 3764, The Prohibit Chlorpyrifos Poisoning Students Act, to ban chlorpyrifos and implement pesticide buffer zones around schools. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) has, since 2017, introduced S921, the Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2019, to prohibit all uses of chlorpyrifos on food. And Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) has introduced the S1187, Safe School Meals for Kids Act, which would eliminate chlorpyrifos on food served in school cafeterias. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) introduced HR 230, the Ban Toxic Pesticides Act, which eliminates chlorpyrifos from commerce.

Although EPA recommended a ban on food uses of chlorpyrifos in 2016, under the Trump Administration, the agency has taken steps to reverse the decision. This long court battle appears to be at another inflection point, as the US 9^th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals on April 19, 2019 gave EPA 90 days to either justify use of the chemical or prohibit its use in agriculture.

While focus on chlorpyrifos is sorely needed, and will do much to eliminate hazards to pregnant mothers, children, and farmworkers, there is a need to ensure that the pesticide products that present similar risks are not used as replacements. A good start would be to follow the recommendation of renowned scientists and ban all organophosphate insecticides, which have a similar mode of action to chlorpyrifos. But even that step leaves on the market insecticides like synthetic pyrethroids, which are also hazardous to children, the bee-toxic neonicotinoids, frog killing fungicides, and carcinogenic herbicides like glyphosate and 2,4-D.

What is needed, in the long-term, is a wholesale transition of U.S. agriculture to organic practices. Many balk at the suggestion, but study after study has found this solution to be worth the investment – for local economies,  human health, in the battle against the climate crisis, and for a sustainable future.

The pesticide industry has convinced many that it would be impossible to “feed the world” with organic agriculture. However, as UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Hilal Elver, PhD, said in 2017, “It is a myth. Using more pesticides has nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.”

Since Rachel Carson stunned the world and ignited the modern environmental movement with Silent Spring, pesticide regulation has been stuck in a whack-a-mole approach that targets only the most publicly visible, toxic, and researched chemicals for restrictions. By transitioning to organic, not only in food production, but also in the management of pests in lawns and landscapes, and other pest control practices, we can eliminate the broad range of chemicals linked to diseases that are all too common in today’s world, and truly protect public health, wildlife, and the environment.

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

Source: EarthJustice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2019) Beleaguered pollinators deal with a multitude of human-engineered threats: habitat fragmentation and loss via development and agricultural intensification, ecosystems and food sources tainted with toxic synthetic pesticides, and shrinking food sources via habitat and biodiversity loss. Research out of the Imperial College of London shows that such challenges are exacerbated, for bumblebees, by another impact of pesticide exposure — impaired flight endurance and dynamics.

Published in the journal Ecology and Evolution in late April, ”Pesticide exposure affects flight dynamics and reduced flight endurance in bumblebees” examines how acute exposure to the neonicotinoid imidacloprid affects the nature of bumblebee foraging flight. The study’s researchers find that worker bumblebees so exposed exhibit significant diminishment of flight endurance — measured as both distance and duration — to approximately one-third of what control workers demonstrate. This new information, aggregated with the many other factors that threaten pollinators, points to the importance of ending the use of chemical controls, such as the neonicotinoid imidacloprid, and transitioning to organic systems of agricultural pest management that do not rely on toxic compounds that harm wildlife, ecosystems, water resources, and humans.

Previous research has shown numerous impacts of pesticide exposure on bumblebees, and of neonicotinoid exposure, in particular, including: reproductive failures, alteration of gene expression, harmful changes in attraction to food sources, reduced colony nurturance activity, and decreased foraging activity, as well as colony size. Although acute exposures to pesticide residues may not be lethal to bumblebees, these sublethal effects on them and their behaviors can cause very significant degradation in colony functioning and health.

Flight capacity is obviously critical to bumblebee health and survival, and to those of the colony. The subject paper adds, “While both control and pesticide‐exposed workers were equally motivated to fly initially, pesticide‐exposed workers had a higher probability of terminating flight before the end of the 60‐min[ute] flight test, which was even evident within the first 100 m[eters]. Intriguingly, pesticide workers exhibited a higher mean velocity compared with control workers, which was underpinned by faster flight speeds over the course of the first ¾ km, both during and after which we observed a considerable proportion of pesticide workers terminating their flight. Furthermore, our results suggest that pesticide exposure may negate the capability of larger workers to fly longer distances than their smaller sister workers. . . . Our flight tests suggest that imidacloprid‐exposed bumblebee workers experienced a rapid demotivation to fly as the test progressed and/or tired quickly leading to premature physical exhaustion.”

The study used a “controlled tethered flight mill,” equipment that allows the bees to fly in a laboratory, rather than in situ, but lets scientists measure numerous aspects of that flight, as well as pre- and post- status of the insect controls and those exposed to imidacloprid. The research shows that exposure to the neonicotinoid seems to impair not initial motivation to fly, but flight stamina. The compound has previously been implicated in degraded honeybee energy metabolism, and in reduced activity in the mitochondria (cellular energy centers) in bumblebees and honeybees, which could potentially cause rapid muscle fatigue and, thus, foreshortened flights. The faster flights may be explained by the increased neuronal activity shown to be a function of neonicotinoid exposure.

When bumblebees fly to forage for food, they need the stamina to get to the sources, and then return to the nest. Researchers proffer a necessary minimum, round-trip, flight distance range for them of .68–4.4 kilometers, but note that the pesticide‐exposed worker bumblebees flew shorter distances, on average, than the lower limit of this range. Exposure to imidacloprid appears to have reduced total flight distance by nearly 1.2 km, on average, which represents a 64% reduction compared to the average flight distance of the research controls. The dramatic net metric, however, lies in researchers’ conclusion that this difference would lead to an 87% decline in the total foraging area accessible to a colony — reducing the diversity, nutritional quality, and abundance of food available. Thus, exposures to neonicotinoid pesticides — which are very commonly used, particularly as plant seed coatings, despite questionable utility — have the potential to stress, significantly and cumulatively (with other stressors), the success of bumblebee colonies and their role as critical pollinators, never mind their survival.

Pests can be prevented and managed safely without the use of neonicotinoid or other pesticides. Pollinators can be protected through improved public policy and regulation, and smart choices by home and land owners. As Beyond Pesticides has written, “There is an alternative to the indiscriminate poisoning of pollinators and ecosystems. A solution exists that is effective, productive, economically viable, and sustainable and does not require yet another new toxic pesticide or genetically engineered crop: organic land management. By respecting the environment, the complexity and benefits of interconnected ecosystems, organic agriculture protects pollinators and enhances the benefits we derive from the natural environment.”

See Beyond Pesticides’ Eating With a Conscience for information on why organic is the right choice, and the Bee Protective Habitat Guide and Bee Protective webpage for additional resources for going organic and safeguarding pollinators. In addition, find information on pollinator-friendly seeds and plants here.

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

Source: Ecology and Evolution

(Beyond Pesticides, May 3, 2019) A Maryland Court of Special Appeals yesterday ruled that Montgomery County, Maryland has the right to restrict pesticides, under a 2015 landmark law, on all lawns and landscaped property in its jurisdiction more stringently than the state. This decision reverses a lower Circuit Court decision and upholds local democratic decision making in the face of a challenge by the industry groups representing lawn care companies and chemical manufacturers. Nine organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, filed an Amicus brief in support of the county law.

The chemical industry has fought for nearly three decades to suppress the right of local governments in the U.S. to protect public health and safety with pesticide law, having successfully lobbied 43 states to preempt their local political subdivisions’ authority. Seven states uphold local authority, including the state of Maryland, which has affirmed in its legislature the rights of localities by rejecting preemption legislation on numerous occasions.

According to Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, “This is an important win for the local organic land management movement sweeping the country, as local elected officials embrace practices that protect the health of people and the environment.” The attorneys for the county expect that industry groups will file a petition for a writ of certiorari (judicial review) and request a stay of enforcement with the Court of Appeals.

“This important state court decision affirms local democratic decision making to protect health and the environment, upholding the first U.S. county law  to ban toxic pesticides used on lawns on both private and public property,” said Mr. Feldman.

In the Court’s words:

From 1958-1962, Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring from her home in Silver Spring. Carson’s examination of the health impacts of DDT and other pesticides galvanized the public, and the next decade saw Congress enact a broad range of statutes that are foundational to modern environmental law. Montgomery County claims, in essence, that it is following in these footsteps, but we must determine whether it has done so consistently with State law.

In 2015, the Montgomery County Council passed an ordinance restricting the use of certain pesticides for cosmetic purposes throughout the County. The Supreme Court held in 1991 that the principal federal law governing pesticides permits such local legislation. Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 (1991). Here, we are asked to decide whether the County’s legislation is impliedly preempted or in conflict with Maryland’s Agriculture Article. We conclude that the ordinance does not run afoul of State law. Because the Circuit Court for Montgomery County found otherwise, we reverse both its injunction and declaratory judgment, and remand for an entry of a new declaratory judgment declaring the validity of the County ordinance. To briefly summarize, we principally ground our decision on the following:

 1) State law does not expressly preempt local government regulation of pesticides;

 2) Following a 1985 published opinion of the Attorney General which said

that State law did not impliedly preempt local pesticide regulation, 70 Md. Att’y Gen. Op. 161 (1985), and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Mortier that federal law also did not preempt local regulation, the pesticide industry unsuccessfully sought passage of preemptive legislation in 1992, 1993, and 1994. In full recognition of existing local pesticide ordinances, the members of the House of Delegates by floor vote rejected each of the bills that sought to preempt more stringent local regulation. This “strongly suggests” under the Amendment Rejection Theory that there was no legislative intent to authorize or recognize preemption. Allied Vending, Inc. v. City of Bowie, 332 Md. 279, 304 (1993). No piece of legislation enacted subsequently undercuts that conclusion;

 3) For decades, Maryland’s Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays Critical Area Protection Program has authorized certain counties to regulate pesticides within the Critical Area without any record of chaos and confusion for multi-tiered regulation;

 4) Despite the existence of a comprehensive federal statute desirous of “uniformity” of regulation, the Supreme Court said that federal law did not regulate pesticides “with[] regard to regional and local factors like climate, population, geography, and water supply” or oust local regulation with respect to such matters. Mortier, 501 U.S. at 614-15;

  5) Probably less comprehensive than federal law, see 501 U.S. at 613, Maryland’s pesticide statutes also reference uniformity with federal legislation. This is best regarded as an aspirational goal, rather than an obstacle to local legislation. The language of State law and enactments of the General Assembly would authorize broader regulation than federal law both generally and specifically;

  6) There is no pervasive administrative enforcement of State pesticide statutes by the Maryland Department of Agriculture, which receives federal funds to enforce federal law in Maryland and which has opposed tougher pesticide controls as “anti-agriculture”; and

  7) Appellees’ contentions and the circuit court’s conclusion that the County ordinance frustrates the purposes of State law run counter to County Council of Prince George’s County v. Chaney Enters. Ltd. P’ship, 454 Md. 514, 541 n. 19 (2017) (Frustration of purpose has never been applied to resolve a conflict between State and local law).

By passing the Healthy Lawns Act, 52-14, the Montgomery County Council acknowledged growing demand within the community for natural and organic lawn care practices and compatible products. These cost-effective lawn care methods have been shown to eliminate the need for toxic pesticide use through improvements in soil biology that support more resilient plants. Pro-pesticide plaintiffs challenging the restrictions were led by Complete Lawn Care, and supported by the pesticide industry lobby group, Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE).

Communities across the U.S. are considering legislation similar to Montgomery County. In states that preempt, ordinances are focused on the management of public lands within the jurisdiction. See model ordinance, as adopted by the City of South Portland, Maine, here.

Beyond Pesticides’ Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies lists over 150 communities in 23 states that restrict chemical pesticide use. In Maine, over 20 policies address both public and private pesticide applications. Eight of ten Canadian provinces, and over 170 Canadian municipalities have laws with a similar structure to Montgomery County’s Healthy Lawns Act.

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

Source: Special Court of Appeals decision (May 2, 2019)