(Beyond Pesticides, May 22, 2018)  A staggering 209 million pounds of pesticides were used in California in 2016, according to the latest data released by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR). This figure refers only to applied “active” pesticide ingredients and not “inerts,” which often account for 80 to 99 percent of pesticide products and can be equally hazardous to human health and the environment. Even though pesticide use in the state has dropped by 1.4 percent from the previous year, pesticide use in 2016 was still the third highest in recorded history, since the inception of DPR’s comprehensive data collection program in 1990. In fact, the total pesticide use was only six million pounds shy of the highest amount ever recorded – 215 million pounds in 1998. The land area treated with carcinogens is as large as the size of New Jersey and Connecticut combined.

Nearly 102 million cumulative acres of land were treated with pesticides in the state, ranging in toxicity from low to high risk. Each time an acre is pesticide-treated in a given year, DPR adds the acre to its cumulative list, even if the treatment is repeated on the same land. The 2016 figure represents an increase of 4.3 million treated acres (4.4 percent) over 2015. What is the most troubling about these data is the fact that pesticides on either California’s Prop 65 list or EPA’s list of chemical carcinogens were applied to more than nine million cumulative acres in the state. This is equivalent to spreading the most hazardous pesticides ever produced on a swath of land the size of New Jersey and Connecticut combined. Chief among the most widely used and carcinogenic pesticides listed in DPR’s report is the herbicide glyphosate, and the soil fumigants 1,3-dichloropropene and metam-potassium.

While California’s pesticide use has been increasing over the past ten years from 172 million pounds in 2007, DPR consistently downplays the community, worker, and environmental impacts of such enormous pesticide applications, year after year. In its report summary, DPR states that the continued use of such a high volume of pesticide reflects a move by farmers to apply lower-risk pesticides that require higher application rates to be effective. The report highlights the decrease in the developmental neurotoxin, chlorpyrifos, to below 1 million pounds, as a case in point. Yet, that number still represents a huge environmental release of an extremely toxic pesticide known for its harmful effects on the brain development of children in utero and the developmental functions of children into adulthood. Due to these and other serious health concerns, chlorpyrifos was on track to be banned nationwide until EPA Director, Scott Pruitt, intervened to stop it in February. This past month, the Hawaiian state legislature banned its use in response to widespread public pressure. Several other states are considering a ban and California, as the country’s biggest agriculture producer and pesticide user, should be one of them.

California’s Food and Agricultural Code requires DPR to use the data it collects to establish priorities for protecting public health, farmworkers, and rural communities, among other things. To that end, DPR’s analysis of pesticide use near schools indicates that children are experiencing unacceptably high exposure levels, due to the close proximity of farms to school yards. In response, DPR ruled in 2017 that farmers must refrain from applying pesticides within a quarter mile of K-12 schools and registered daycare centers when they are in session, from 6am to 6pm. While this represents an important change in pesticides practices, it does not eliminate pesticide spraying near schools altogether. Spraying can simply be done after hours and on weekends when community events could also be taking place. Much more aggressive actions are needed to prevent pesticide exposures, including banning the most hazardous chemicals.

In February of this year, USDA released its 2016 Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary, which documents its pesticide residue testing of over 10,000 samples of a wide variety of domestic and imported food. While the report notes that “99.5 percent of the samples tested had pesticide residues well below benchmark levels established by EPA,” it concludes that 78 percent of the samples contain some amount of pesticide residue. Public health advocates say that this large percentage is cause for grave concern as pesticides accumulate in food, air and water. EPA establishes legal limits or tolerances for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food that it deems “with a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” The “no harm” standard is based on risk assessments establishing acceptable levels of risk. While calculating acceptable exposure by aggregating exposure pathways from food, drinking water, and residential settings, EPA does not, by law, include in its aggregate risk assessment occupational exposures such as agriculture, which is by far the greatest exposure pathway.

Beyond Pesticides has been critical of the manner in which EPA sets pesticide tolerance residues in food because of its wholly deficient review of the associated adverse effects. Many chemicals that account for a significant amount of dietary exposure and risk, such as organophosphate insecticides, carbamate insecticides and toxic soil fungicides in particular have yet to be assessed.

For decades, Beyond Pesticides has challenged the need for the extensive use of highly toxic, carcinogenic, ecosystem-depleting, and endocrine disrupting pesticides in agriculture. Instead, it has advocated that the government prioritize aiding farmers in the transition to organic agriculture.  You can learn about alternatives to toxic pesticide and herbicide use in your home and garden by consulting Beyond Pesticides’ The Safer Choice webpage. There you can obtain information about non-toxic product choices for your home and school, ideas for eating organically and affordably, and how you can organize to make your community a pesticide-free zone.

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

Source:  FairWarning;

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2018)  490,000 Pounds of Toxic Pesticides Sprayed on National Wildlife Refuges in 2016

The nation’s 562 national wildlife refuges play a critical role in protecting fish, plants, and other wildlife. They include forests, wetlands, and waterways vital to thousands of species of plants and animals, including 280 that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. However, private chemical-intensive commercial farming of crops like corn, soybeans, and sorghum has become common on refuge lands, with the increasing use of highly toxic pesticides that threaten the long-term health of sensitive habitats and the creatures who depend on them. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) estimates that 490,000 pounds of pesticides were applied to commodity crops like corn, soybeans, and sorghum grown in national wildlife refuges in 2016, the most recent year for which data are available.

Tell FWS to take toxic pesticides out of wildlife refuges.

The nearly half million pounds of pesticides used on wildlife refuges in 2016 include 2,4-D, dicamba, and paraquat, all of which are toxic to fish, amphibians, crustaceans, and other animals. Also included are 116,200 pounds of glyphosate, the herbicide that has caused widespread decreases in milkweed plants, helping to trigger the 80 percent population decline of monarch butterflies over the past two decades.

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a phase-out of the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops to feed wildlife and a ban on neonicotinoid insecticides from all wildlife refuges nationwide by January 2016. CBD found that although 498 pounds of neonicotinoid pesticides were applied in 2016 to potato crops on the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, all neonicotinoid use has now been discontinued in the refuge system. The heavy use of glyphosate, generally used on crops that are engineered to tolerate it, suggests that the phase-out of GE crops may not have been so successful.

Refuges exist for the protection of wildlife, and activities there should not jeopardize their health. FWS should require that organic practices be used in any farming on refuges.

Tell FWS to take toxic pesticides out of wildlife refuges.

Letter: [Send to [email protected]]

Subject: Ban toxic pesticides in wildlife refuges

Refuges exist for the protection of wildlife, and activities there should not jeopardize their health. FWS should require that organic practices be used in any farming on refuges.

Private chemical-intensive commercial farming of crops like corn, soybeans, and sorghum on refuge lands threatens the long-term health of sensitive habitats and the creatures who depend on them. In examining records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the Center for Biological Diversity found that nearly half a million pounds of toxic pesticides were applied to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) refuges in 2016.

The pesticides used on wildlife refuges in 2016 include 2,4-D, dicamba, and paraquat, all of which are toxic to fish, amphibians, crustaceans, and other animals. Also included are 116,200 pounds of glyphosate, the herbicide that has caused widespread decreases in milkweed plants, helping to trigger the 80 percent population decline of monarch butterflies over the past two decades.

In 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a phase-out of the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops to feed wildlife and a ban on neonicotinoid insecticides from all wildlife refuges nationwide by January 2016. CBD found that although 498 pounds of neonicotinoid pesticides were applied in 2016 to potato crops on the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex, all neonicotinoid use has now been discontinued in the refuge system. The heavy use of glyphosate, generally used on crops that are engineered to tolerate it, suggests that the phase-out of GE crops may not have been so successful.

Please eliminate the use of toxic pesticides in wildlife refuges and require that organic practices be used in any farming on refuges.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2018) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is putting an end to the process of creating an organic “check-off” promotion program, according to an announcement posted to the Federal Register earlier this week. The program, controversial from the start, split the organic community. While the industry group the Organic Trade Association (OTA) pushed for the program, small producers and family farmers cited exorbitant costs and ineffective government bureaucracy in their opposition.

Check-off programs are traditionally created for producers to pool their money together to further research, information sharing, and promotion of a particular food commodity. Famous programs of the past include “Beef: It’s What’s For Dinner,” “Got Milk?” and “I Love Eggs.” The proposed organic program was unique in that it aimed to promote an entire industry, rather than a specific food product. However, opponents view the program as another tax on farmers that is unnecessary and potentially damaging to small organic producers, citing a history of rigid guidelines, fund mismanagement, and lack of accountability. In the past, successful checkoff programs were associated with declines in family farmers, and opponents believe the program would promote low-priced organic imports at the expense of growing U.S. organic acreage. In eliminating the rule, USDA cited, “uncertain industry support” and “outstanding substantive issues” with the checkoff program.

OTA, however, is pushing back strongly against USDA’s decision, indicating the action as exemplary of the Department’s unfair treatment the organic industry. In a press release, OTA wrote that USDA’s decision “reflects a pattern of holding back forward progress on organic,” and that, “It makes no sense that the agency is continuing to take steps to cut it off at the knees.”

“If there was ever a need for an organic check-off, it is now,” said Laura Batcha, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association. “We are seeing organic dairy and egg sales flattening because of USDA’s failure to move the animal welfare rule forward. Organic research funding is uncertain because it is tied to the unpredictable fate of the Farm Bill. The government also has interfered with the strong role of the National Organic Standards Board. These actions hurt U.S. organic farmers and businesses.”

OTA further cited the juxtaposition of eliminating the organic check-off program after releasing the “smiley face GMO disclosure logo” as evidence that the Department is not being even-handed.  Indeed, the agency appears to be targeting many policies recently passed by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) aimed at boosting the integrity of the organic label. This has led to a rise in third party organic labels such as the Real Organic Project and Regenerative Organic Certification.

According to the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, “We believe that existing Check-off programs have not demonstrated that they contribute to keeping family farm producers in business. We continue to see declining farm numbers and increasing concentration in agriculture while these commodity research and promotion programs are in effect.”

While check-off program has some reeling and others sighing relief, its elimination could provide an opportunity for promote organic. “You can be more flexible with your messaging and even more efficient with the dollars if you’re not tied to the government,” said Harriet Behar, an NOSB member formerly with the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES) when the program was first proposed. For its part, OTA indicates it “will fully assess opportunities through the private sector to advance innovative solutions that will have important and long-lasting benefits for organic farmers.”

Beyond Pesticides strongly promotes the importance of organic farming in creating a truly sustainable food system for the future. The organization tracks the latest decisions from USDA and the NOSB affecting the integrity of the organic label through the Keeping Organic Strong webpage. Efforts to fight back and protect public trust in organic food can be found on the Save Our Organic program page. And for more information on why organic is the right choice for your food dollars see the Why Organic? page.

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

Source: Federal Register, OTA Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2018)  Among the many reports of the salutary effects of nature on human health and well-being comes new research demonstrating that children who live in “green” neighborhoods have reduced risk of developing asthma. Researchers Jeroen Douwes, PhD and Geoffrey H. Donovan, PhD, of New Zealand’s Massey University (Centre for Public Health Research) and the U.S. Forest Service, respectively, conducted the longitudinal study with New Zealand subjects born in 1998, following them until 2016. The authors say the study results “suggest that exposure to greenness and vegetation diversity may be protective of asthma.”

Of concern are the pesticides used in green spaces. See Beyond Pesticides’ brochure, Asthma, Children, and Pesticides and El Asma, los Niños y los Pesticidas: Lo que usted debe saber para proteger a su familia. Also, see Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix.

In addition to the well-substantiated benefits of exposure to nature — reduction of the experience of stress; reduction in production of cortisol (the “stress” hormone that is linked to weight gain, hypertension, cardiac disease, weakened immune function, and loss of bone density); improved mental health; better cognitive function; and lower  BMI (body mass index) — this latest research evaluates the impact on children’s risk for asthma.

The research project used a large database of individual-level information maintained by the New Zealand government (done anonymously and in a secure lab to protect children’s privacy) to track children’s living environments from birth to age 18, quantify the “greenness” of those environments using satellite imagery and land-use data, and link to health records throughout each child’s life. The study measured “greenness” through a metric called the “normalized difference vegetation index,” and used standard deviations from that to categorize the plant systems to which children were exposed. It also controlled for numerous factors that might have been co-contributors to outcomes, including socioeconomic status, education, ethnicity, and income.

Project results show that not only is there benefit to growing up around green vegetation, but interestingly, that not all “green” has the same influence on asthma risk. Children living in greener areas were less likely to become asthmatic, but there was additional protective effect when the vegetation to which they were exposed was more diverse. The presence of more species apparently confers greater protection. And some land cover considered in the study — plants that are (in New Zealand) non-native, low-biodiversity species, such as exotic conifers and gorse — not only conferred no protection, but also, actually constituted a risk factor.

The incidence, as well as the health and cost consequences, of asthma are considerable: 334 million people are affected worldwide. In “developed,” English-speaking countries, such as the U.S., New Zealand, the UK, and Australia, approximately one in six people suffer from it. As the project investigators note, better prevention and treatment options are urgently needed. The decline in biodiversity around the world, due to impacts from climate change, pesticide use, and expansion of the human-made landscape and resultant habitat destruction, among other factors, is a growing environmental concern. This research suggests it may also be a growing public health threat.

What explains the mechanism for this protective effect of exposure to diverse plants in kids’ environment? One idea that has been advanced is the “hygiene hypothesis,” which posits that optimal development of the human immune system requires exposure to a wide variety of microbes, especially early in life. It also suggests that reduced exposure to a multitude of microbes — whether by virtue of living without much in the way of greenscape in one’s early surrounds, overexposure to antibiotics (medically or through diet), exposure to pesticides (environmentally or dietarily), anti-bacterials use (in personal care products, in particular), or perhaps simply living an über-clean home — may make children more vulnerable to immunological diseases, such as asthma and allergies, via a less-well-developed immune system.

This hygiene hypothesis could also explain why it is that children who grow up with siblings (especially multiple), or with animals (farm or pet), are less likely to become asthmatic. (The more “bugs,” it seems, the better.) Now, growing up with green biodiversity can be added to this list of protective factors. Studies have demonstrated that people who live in more-biodiverse areas actually have a greater variety of microbes on their skin. (Remember that humans contain, internally and externally, 10 times more microorganisms than human cells!) A greater range of “challenges” (i.e., exposure to a broad variety of microbes) to the human immune system in the early years of life appears to stimulate a healthy immune response, likely resulting in a more-robust immune system. The researchers do note that lower stress levels and increased physical activity, both of which are associated with living proximate to green space, may be an additional explanation for the protective effects.

Beyond Pesticides has reviewed research on the relationship of pesticide use to asthma, identified risks specific to children’s health, and makes suggestions to help protect children and others from pesticides that increase the risk of developing the disease. There is need for research that would consider whether, within the frame of this study — the more “green,” the less risk of asthma — there is any differential risk for children exposed to landscapes managed with pesticides, herbicides, and/or fungicides, and to those either entirely “unmanaged” or managed organically. For more information on children and pesticides, see Beyond Pesticides webpage on hazards of pesticides for children’s health.

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

Source: https://theconversation.com/children-living-in-green-neighbourhoods-are-less-likely-to-develop-asthma-96190

(Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2018) Northern Harvest Sea Farms, an ocean-based fish farm in New Brunswick, Canada, was appeared in court yesterday to answer legal charges stemming from the off-label use of an unnamed pesticide added to its operations to combat severe sea lice outbreaks. The company holds nine licenses for farmed Atlantic salmon cages on the Bay of Fundy, as well as for fish farms off the Newfoundland coast. Sea lice outbreaks are a common at over-crowded, ocean-based fish farms because such facilities afford the optimum conditions for rapidly reproducing and spreading lice. In response, some companies have turned to using illegal and off-label pesticide applications to stave off the problem, which causes huge farmed salmon kills.

The company was issued a $12,000 fine that was challenged as inadequate by the Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association. Bonnie Morse, project manager for the association told Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) news, “I think any time there’s a fine that’s a deterrent to illegal activity, it should be an actual deterrent to the activity,” said Morse. “When you’re looking at $1.5 million worth of fish, their actions speak for themselves.” Maria Recchia, the executive director of the Fundy North Fishermen’s Association, questioned the allowance of fish farming in the ocean,telling the CBC that the province should not have permitted fish farming in Head Harbour.

Fish farming or aquaculture in the open ocean, refers to the breeding, rearing, and harvesting of aquatic organisms, such as fish, shellfish, and plants. In the open ocean, millions of salmon are reared in confined fish farms and fed processed feed, antibiotics, and parasiticides to keep them alive and disease-free. Ocean water flows in and out of these in permeable nets and pens, which often suffer breaches and fish escapes due to harsh climate conditions and predators.

Salmon net-pen aquaculture interacts with the environment

Fish lice are pervasive and lethal in fish farms. In 2017, over a quarter million salmon died from lice infestations at two Gray Group salmon farms in the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick, Canada. The company preemptively killed another 284,000 salmon in an effort to contain the outbreak and further limit the damage. In Northwest Scotland, lice infestations are a huge problem in their fish farms as well and a leading threat to marine ecosystems where the country’s fish farms are located. In response, the wild fish and water conservation organization, Salmon & Trout Conservation Scotland (S&TC Scotland) and 27 environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others, are calling on Parliament to institute “an immediate moratorium on any new open cage marine salmon farms in Scotland.”

Lice attach to the skin of salmon, causing wounds by feeding on fish mucus, skin, muscle and blood. They weaken fish and expose them to infection and disease. Mortality occurs in young fish (smolts) due to damaged fins, skin lesions, stress, salt imbalances, altered swimming performance, and reduced resistance. Fish escapes are a common. As recently as February, over 21,000 fish escaped from a Norwegian-owned fish farm near the Island of Skye. Escaped farmed fish can infect wild salmon populations with lice and other diseases as they come into contact with smolts swimming out to sea and adults returning to their birth river to spawn.

At fish farms around the world, lice problems are worsening and the lice are developing resistance to the medicines and chemicals designed to curtail their spread. Routine treatments with pesticides, such as emamectin benzoate and cypermethrin, which is illegal in Canada, are used to minimize the impacts to farmed fish living in the unhealthy marine environment. Unfortunately, elevated pesticide use has had the opposite effect, contributing to accelerated pest resistance and prompting fish farms operators to employ increasingly higher doses at fish farms in Canada and elsewhere.

Environment Canada has found traces of cypermethrin in lobster traps and storage sites a mile from Pleasant Point, Maine. The New Brunswick-based Cooke Aquaculture, which operates 100 fish farms on Canada’s Atlantic coast, pled guilty and was fined for illegally using the cypermethrin implicated in hundreds of lobster deaths. Kelly Cove Salmon, a Cooke Aquaculture subsidiary, was also fined a half million dollars for illegally using cypermethrin in violation of Canada’s Fisheries Act. A 2018 Report to the Canadian Parliament by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development examined the impacts of the country’s fish farms and concluded that little progress had been made in improving the situation. “Overall, we found that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not made sufficient progress in completing risk assessments for key diseases, which were required to assess the effects of salmon farming on wild fish.” Matthew Abbott, New Brunswick’s Fundy Baykeeper and Marine Conservation Director, further warns that the use of pesticides in the bay is a big concern even when they are used legally.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program has been considering allowing salmon from ocean-based fish farms to be certified organic, against a strong tide of public opposition. Still, no regulations have been adopted to allow organic certification of farmed fish. In the EU and Canada, where governments certify organic fish, the environmental impacts remain remarkably similar to conventionally farmed salmon because the operations exist in the same marine environment, using similar management practices. The EU’s organic fish farms use some organic ingredients in their feed rations, like organic wheat and organic soy, which conventional farms do not use. But, neither ingredient is part of a salmon’s natural diet. The UK’s Organic Soil Association’s organic regulations require stocking densities of 30,000 fish per cage versus 70,000 for conventional fish farms. Either way, the salmon still grow in crowded cages where their natural migration behavior is completely eliminated.

It is important for consumers to know that all “Atlantic Salmon” sold in the U.S. is farmed. That is why it often has a slight gray tinge, it is oilier and less firm than normal, and it lacks the rich savory taste of wild salmon. Organic salmon certified in accordance EU regulations costs the same as wild salmon but affords little if any discernible environmental benefits, only costs. On the contrary, organic fish farming significantly contributes to marine pollution by adding synthetic pesticides and antibiotics to the marine environment, which contravenes consumer expectations of organic food production systems.

Given the enormous environmental burden fish farms pose to the marine environment – organic and conventional – and their deleterious effects on wild fish populations, certified organic salmon should never be considered an option in the US. To support the integrity of organic and to oppose allowing fish reared in ocean-based fish farms to be certified organic, go to Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

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

Sources: CBC; Bangor Daily News; Organic Advocacy; CBC News

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2018) According to a new report from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), hundreds of thousands of pounds of pesticides are sprayed on lands that are designated as refuges for wildlife and protected under U.S. law. Approximately 490,000 pounds of pesticides have been sprayed on crops grown in national wildlife refuges in 2016 alone. Pesticide use in these sensitive areas poses risks to pollinators, aquatic organisms, migratory birds, and other wildlife on refuges that were created to protect them.

The report, No Refuge, released last week, analyzes pesticide use on national wildlife refuges using records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The report finds that in 2016 more than 270,000 acres of refuge lands were sprayed with pesticides for agricultural purposes. Five national wildlife refuge systems are identified as most reliant on pesticides for agriculture:

• Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge Complex in California and Oregon, with 236,966 pounds of pesticides;
• Central Arkansas Refuges Complex in Arkansas, with 48,725 pounds of pesticides;
• West Tennessee Refuge Complex in Tennessee, with 22,044 pounds of pesticides;
• Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex in Tennessee, with 16,615 pounds of pesticides; and,
• Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia, with 16,442 pounds of pesticides.

Intensive commercial farming has become increasingly common on refuge lands, especially since the advent of genetically engineered (GE) crops like corn and soybean. Increased pesticide use, especially pesticides like glyphosate, 2,4-D, and dicamba threaten the long-term health of these sensitive habitats and the wildlife that depend on them. The report finds that more than 55,000 acres in the refuge system were treated with 116,200 pounds of glyphosate, the pesticide that has caused widespread decreases in milkweed plants, helping to trigger an 80 percent decline of the monarch butterfly over the past two decades. Over 15,000 pounds of 2,4-D was used on more than 12,000 refuges acres, and 6,800 pounds of paraquat dichloride was used on over 3,000 acres. These pesticides are toxic to mammals, aquatic organisms and can potentially jeopardize endangered and threatened species.

“These pesticides are profoundly dangerous for plants and animals and have no place being used on such a staggering scale in our wildlife refuges,” said Hannah Connor, a senior attorney at CBD who authored the analysis. “The Interior Department needs to put an end to this outrage and return to its mission of protecting imperiled wildlife, not row crops.”

Aerial spraying of pesticides routinely occurs on refuge lands. In 2016, 107,342 acres were aerially sprayed with 127,020 pounds of pesticides, including approximately 1,328 pounds dicamba, a pesticide that is known to drift for miles and adversely affect off-site areas and non-target species. The report calls for an end to the use of toxic pesticides on the refuges, saying, “The widespread use of pesticides for private agricultural purposes on national wildlife refuges conflicts with the mission of the refuge system and creates a legacy of chemical pollution that threatens the long-term health of these essential ecosystems.”

A federal lawsuit, filed by Center for Food Safety (CFS), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Sierra Club, and Beyond Pesticides, challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) over farming practices in five refuges in the Midwest (IL, IA, MN and MO) and sought to force the agency, which oversees refuges, to stop these practices until it completes rigorous analyses of their environmental impacts. In 2014, FWS announced it will phase out the use of GE crops to feed wildlife and ban neonicotinoid insecticides on all wildlife refuges nationwide beginning January 2016. In its statement the agency said, “We have demonstrated our ability to successfully accomplish refuge purposes over the past two years without using genetically modified crops, therefore, it is no longer possible to say that their use is essential to meet wildlife management objectives.” FWS continued, “We have determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can potentially affect a broad spectrum of non-target species, is not consistent with Service policy. We make this decision based on a precautionary approach to our wildlife management practices and not on agricultural practices.” FWS is the first federal agency to restrict the use of GE crops in farming in the U.S. and the use of neonicotinoids based on a precautionary policy.

Scientists warn that the use of GE crops leads to increased pesticide use on refuges, negatively affecting birds, aquatic animals, and other wildlife. A vast spectrum of recent scientific findings has implicated neonicotinoids in pollinator declines and ecosystem harm. Reports from the U.S. Geological Survey routinely find widespread pesticide contamination of surface waters throughout the U.S.

For nearly a decade, Beyond Pesticides, CFS, and PEER campaigned against GE crops and pesticide use on refuges. In March 2009, CFS and PEER won a lawsuit, filed in 2006, halting GE plantings on Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. In 2011, the groups forced a legal settlement ending GE planting on refuges throughout the 12-state Northeast Region. In 2012, a federal court formally halted the planting of GE crops on all National Wildlife Refuges in the Southeastern U.S., as well as ordered steps to mitigate environmental damage from their previous illegal cultivation.

For more information on pesticide impacts on wildlife, visit Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife page. For information on what you can do to protect bees and other pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective campaign information.

Source: Center for Biological Diversity Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2018) Under EPA Administrator Pruitt’s proposed “transparency” plan, the public will still lack access to key data about the effects and efficacy of commercial poisons approved for sale and application in their communities and homes.

Tell EPA to adopt a real transparency plan for pesticides!

The proposed policy, posted on April 30 in the Federal Register, declares that it will “help ensure that EPA is pursuing its mission of public health and the environment in a manner that the public can trust and understand,” yet it applies only to a very limited set of studies used to support certain EPA regulations. The pesticide registration and review processes are particularly lacking in transparency, opportunity for public review, and access to data. Because pesticides are toxic chemicals broadcast into the environment, nowhere is transparency more important than in pesticide registration.

The proposed new policy does not cover pesticide registrations, warning labels, use restrictions, or proof of effectiveness. In the current process, the pesticide manufacturer produces the underlying data for these EPA approvals and controls access to them. Thus, despite Pruitt’s sweeping claims of “transparency in regulatory science”:

• The public does not have access to the underlying data provided by the manufacturer to justify registering a new pesticide for commercial distribution;
• Industry will not have to provide the data used to assess health and environmental effects and farmworker impacts to set allowable dietary and non-dietary exposure limits; and
• On the product’s efficacy, the public also does not have access to the underlying data, nor does EPA even review manufacturer data on product effectiveness, except for very limited purposes.

To ensure full review, it is critical that the public and independent scientific community have complete access to safety testing data before poisonous pesticide products enter the marketplace. If EPA applies the proposed policy to pesticides, the failure to allow consideration of independent study results without disclosing confidential patient information will cripple the validity of EPA safety reviews. Furthermore, the failure to label all ingredients in pesticide products used by the public runs contrary to the basic principle of informed decision making.

Mr. Pruitt’s plan does not enable the public to have any meaningful information about “environmental health risk or safety risk,” as he claims. Under a false flag of scientific transparency, Mr. Pruitt’s scheme hobbles scientific work used to protect the public, but shields industry data that may demonstrate a public health peril.

EPA pesticide regulation is based on secret science.

Although EPA has proposed a rulemaking that purports to make science used in EPA regulatory decision making transparent and available to the public, the proposal applies only to “significant” EPA rulemakings, but not to matters such as pesticide registrations, through which private companies seek authorization to market products that may be harmful to public health and the environment. The pesticide registration and review processes are particularly lacking in transparency and opportunity for public review and access to data.

Data used to approve pesticides are not available to the public.
Pesticides are registered (authorized for use) based on studies and data submitted by the manufacturer (registrant) —not based on science conducted or commissioned by EPA. Such registrant data are not available for public review until after the pesticide is registered. The nonpublic data submitted by the registrant are used by EPA to assess health and environmental effects of the pesticide and impacts on farmworkers, and to set allowable human exposures through dietary and non-dietary routes —all without any opportunity for public review of the underlying data.

After registration, the public can access the materials on the basis of which the registration was granted only through making requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a lengthy process. Even then, much information is withheld as purportedly “confidential.” If problems are identified that uncover a hazard from the pesticide, a member of the public would need to petition for a proceeding to cancel the registration, a long and unwieldy process during which the pesticide remains on the market.

EPA’s registration, registration review, and cancellation of pesticides raise numerous issues regarding the application of legitimate scientific process, risk assessment, exposure assumptions, sensitive populations, and the “reasonableness” of what are found to be “acceptable” hazards. Transparency of agency processes and underlying data is key to allowing public participation concerning these issues.

Full disclosure of known and unknown adverse effects is needed. 

EPA does not currently require that registrants disclose data submitted to EPA or label pesticides (including household pesticides) with data concerning the full extent of knowledge and/or ignorance of possible adverse effects, including data gaps and chronic health effects. Registrants’ exposure and toxicology studies are not released to the public so that any interested stakeholder can review them prior to a product being permitted on the market.

Conditional registration is missing crucial data.
Pesticide registrations under special circumstances, known as “conditional registrations,” allow widespread use of toxic chemicals that are not fully tested. Conditional registration of pesticides allows market entry for a product in the absence of certain data normally required for registration. As one glaring example, EPA came under scrutiny when it conditionally registered the neonicotinoid pesticide clothianidin, tied to dramatic declines in pollinators, without required pertinent field data on honeybees, even though the pesticide is known to pose risks to these vulnerable pollinators.

Efficacy data on pesticide products are lacking.
The public does not have access to, and EPA does not review, manufacturer data on pesticide efficacy, even though the statutory registration standard requires weighing the risks of pesticides against their benefits. Without efficacy information, the real benefits of a pesticide are unknown, and the reasonableness of pesticide use cannot be assessed. The lack of efficacy data review results in escalating and predictable insect and weed resistance, unnecessary increases in pesticide use, and increased risk for farmers of crop loss and economic damage. The only instance in which EPA evaluates pesticide efficacy is as a part of public health (not agricultural) pesticide registrations, and even this is without public disclosure or opportunity for comment.

Secret ingredients in pesticide products are not disclosed.
Currently, pesticide labels do not identify “inert” ingredients that have been classified as hazardous under a variety of environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Disclosure would provide information about almost 400 hazardous chemicals in pesticide products.

Only active ingredients, not formulations, are tested.
EPA does not require testing data on the full formulation of a pesticide product, including all of the “inert” ingredients. Thus, data on the human health and environmental effects of the actual product on the market are entirely lacking.

The federal government needs a vision for pesticide policy across relevant agencies that seeks to replace outdated approaches and technologies, reliant on toxic chemicals, with green approaches advanced through incentives, assistance, and restrictions. This cannot be achieved without full transparency and disclosure of toxic hazards of pesticide products in the marketplace. Without full information on pesticide hazards, access to underlying data on hazards, and a transparent assessment of the reasonableness of risk (given the availability of less or non-toxic alternatives), the public is left in the dark. Credible reviews, subject to public oversight, are essential in EPA’s regulation of pesticides to prevent contamination of air, land, water, and food.

Tell EPA to adopt a real transparency plan for pesticides!

Letter to EPA Docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259)

[Send to [email protected]]

Under the proposed “transparency” plan, the public will still lack access to key data about the effects and efficacy of commercial poisons approved for sale and application in their communities and homes. The proposed policy declares that it will “help ensure that EPA is pursuing its mission of public health and the environment in a manner that the public can trust and understand,” yet it applies only to a very limited set of studies used to support certain EPA regulations. The pesticide registration and review processes are particularly lacking in transparency, opportunity for public review, and access to data. Because pesticides are toxic chemicals broadcast into the environment, nowhere is transparency more important than pesticide registration.

The proposed new policy does not cover pesticide registrations, warning labels, use restrictions, or proof of effectiveness. Because the pesticide manufacturer produces the underlying data for these EPA approvals and controls access to them, no transparency will be provided in pesticide registration, in which:

* The public does not have access to the underlying data provided by the manufacturer to justify registering a new pesticide for commercial distribution;

* Industry will not have to provide the data used to assess health and environmental effects and farmworker impacts to set allowable dietary and non-dietary exposure limits; and

* Neither the public nor EPA has access to the underlying efficacy data, except for very limited purposes.

To ensure full review, it is critical that the public and independent scientific community have complete access to safety testing data before pesticide products enter the marketplace. If EPA applies the proposed policy to pesticides, the failure to allow consideration of independent study results without disclosing confidential patient information will cripple the validity of EPA safety reviews. Furthermore, the failure to label all ingredients in pesticide products used by the public runs contrary to the basic principle of informed decision making.

The proposal does not prevent EPA from issuing conditional registrations in the absence of required data, nor does it require industry to make that data publicly available at a later date.

It does not grant the public access to meaningful information about “environmental health risk or safety risk,” as claimed. Instead, the policy hobbles scientific work used to protect the public while shielding industry data that may demonstrate the public health peril.

EPA pesticide regulation is based on secret science.

Although the proposed rulemaking purports to make science used in EPA regulatory decision making transparent and available to the public, by its own terms it applies only to “significant” EPA rulemakings, where EPA is seeking to protect public health and the environment, but not to matters such as pesticide registrations, through which private companies seek authorization to market products that may be harmful to public health and the environment. The pesticide registration and review processes are particularly lacking in transparency and opportunity for public review and access to data.

Data used to approve pesticides are not available to the public.
Pesticides are registered (authorized for use) based on studies and data submitted by the manufacturer (registrant). Such registrant data are not available for public review until after the pesticide is registered. The nonpublic data submitted by the registrant are used by EPA to assess health and environmental effects of the pesticide and impacts on farmworkers, and to set allowable human exposures through dietary and non-dietary routes –all without any opportunity for public review of the underlying data.

After registration, the public can access the materials on the basis of which the registration was granted (which still may not include all underlying data) only through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a lengthy process. Even then, much information is withheld as purportedly “confidential.” If problems are identified that uncover a hazard from the pesticide, a member of the public would need to petition for a proceeding to cancel the registration, a long and unwieldy process during which the pesticide remains on the market.

EPA’s registration, registration review, and cancellation of pesticides raise numerous issues regarding the application of legitimate scientific process, risk assessment, exposure assumptions, sensitive populations, and the “reasonableness” of what are found to be “acceptable” hazards. True transparency of agency processes and underlying data is key to allowing public participation concerning these issues.  

Full disclosure of known and unknown adverse effects is needed. 

EPA does not currently require that registrants disclose data submitted to EPA or label pesticides (including household pesticides) with data concerning the full extent of knowledge and/or ignorance of possible adverse effects, including data gaps and chronic health effects. Registrants’ exposure and toxicology studies are not released to the public so that any interested stakeholder can review them prior to a product being permitted on the market.

Conditional registration is missing crucial data.
Conditional registrations allow widespread use of toxic chemicals that are not fully tested. Conditional registration of pesticides allows market entry for a product in the absence of certain data normally required for registration. As one glaring example, EPA came under scrutiny when it conditionally registered the neonicotinoid pesticide chlothianidin, tied to dramatic declines in pollinators, without required pertinent field data on honeybees, even though the pesticide is known to pose risks to these vulnerable pollinators.

Efficacy data on pesticide products are lacking.
The public does not have access to, and EPA does not review, manufacturer data on pesticide efficacy, even though the statutory registration standard requires weighing the risks of pesticides against their benefits. Without efficacy information, the real benefits of a pesticide are unknown, and the reasonableness of pesticide use cannot be assessed. The lack of efficacy data review results in escalating and predictable insect and weed resistance, unnecessary increases in pesticide use, and increased risk for farmers of crop loss and economic damage. The only instance in which EPA evaluates pesticide efficacy is as a part of public health (not agricultural) pesticide registrations, and even this is without public disclosure or opportunity for comment.

“Secret ingredients” in pesticide products are not disclosed.
Currently, pesticide labels do not identify “inert” ingredients that have been classified as hazardous under a variety of environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Disclosure would provide information about almost 400 hazardous chemicals in pesticide products.

Only active ingredients, not formulations, are tested.
EPA does not require testing data on the full formulation of a pesticide product, including all of the “inert” ingredients. Thus, data on the human health and environmental effects of the actual product on the market are entirely lacking.

The federal government needs a vision for pesticide policy across relevant agencies that seeks to replace outdated approaches and technologies, reliant on toxic chemicals, with green approaches advanced through incentives, assistance and restrictions. This cannot be achieved without full transparency and disclosure of toxic hazards of pesticide products in the marketplace. Without full information on pesticide hazards, access to underlying data on hazards, and a transparent assessment of the reasonableness of risk (given the availability of less or non-toxic alternatives), the public is left in the dark. Credible reviews, subject to public oversight, are essential in EPA’s regulation of pesticides to prevent contamination of air, land, water, and food.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2018) Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its long-awaited proposal for disclosing the presence of genetically engineering (GE) in foods. Much to the disappointment of health, environmental, and consumer advocates, the draft rule appears as an attempt mask or to promote GE products, rather than caution consumers. Concerned individuals can send comments to USDA on the proposed rule through regulations.gov until July 3^rd.

USDA’s Proposed Labels for GE foods

USDA’s proposal will move forward with wholly insufficient disclosure requirements that the Department’s own study had indicated are discriminatory, according to analysts. Rather than use the phrase “genetically modified,” or “genetically engineered,” or include the acronyms “GE” or “GMO,” USDA is using the term “bioengineered.” The symbols proposed by USDA are a happy, smiling sun that would read either “bioengineered” or “may be bioengineered food.” Of course, such a symbol suggests to consumers that these foods are a positive, rather than concerning addition to a food product. However, USDA is also giving the option of simply including the words “bioengineered food,” “contains a bioengineered food ingredient,” or even leaving that language out and directing consumers to a QR code.

A lawsuit by the Center for Food Safety forced USDA to release a congressionally mandated study on the viability of using QR codes, small barcodes that must be scanned with a smartphone app and require broadband internet access. The research reinforced the common sense around the issue: low-income and rural residents, individuals unfamiliar with QR codes, and those without access to a smart phone or internet services will lack access to this information. The study concluded that “offline alternatives are necessary for consumers who lack access to a scanning device or broadband.”

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of USDA’s proposed rule is that it has left the decision whether to label “highly refined” GE products like cooking oil, snacks, candy, and soda up in the air. If USDA were to determine these foods did not require labeling, consumers would be no better off than before the weak and controversial bill was signed into law by President Obama in 2016.

Consumer, health, and environmental advocates primary concern with GE foods is not the health issues of eating GE foods themselves, but the multitude of up and downstream impacts created by GE agriculture. Despite promises of disease-resistance, drought-tolerance, and vitamin enhancement, GE crops have primarily been developed by multinational agrichemical corporations as a way to increase profits by vertically integrating their seed and chemical divisions. Farmers that grow GE crops are locked into a contract that requires they use one specific company’s seeds and pesticides. This is bad for farmers and our agricultural economy, and it further erodes the preservation and development of heirloom and regionally adapted seed varieties.

Herbicide-tolerant GE crops have been associated with massive increases in herbicide use and the rampant takeover of US farms by weeds which, through incessant herbicide spray, have themselves developed genes to resist herbicide mortality. As glyphosate, the most common herbicide developed for crop tolerance, has decreased in effectiveness, chemical companies began rolling out new GE crops using older herbicides like 2,4-D and dicamba that rival glyphosate’s toxicity. Chemical companies have also incorporated insecticides into the crop itself, with evidence that resistance in target pests is trending synthetic insecticide use upwards.

Concern over farmers and our economy, farmworkers and their exposure, the impact of these pesticides on wildlife and the environment, and the likelihood for these overused pesticides to show up on GE foods make it clear that consumers should have a right to know whether their purchase contributes to the ongoing crisis GE crops create.

Beyond Pesticides strongly encourages individuals to provide substantive comments to USDA through regulations.gov before the July 3^rd deadline. For more information on this toxic form of agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides Genetic Engineering program page, and for a history of the GE labeling movement, see the Daily News archives.

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

Source: Regulations.gov, Modern Farmer

(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2018) Rodenticides like bromadiolone, used to kill vole populations on farms, act like “super-predators” that imperil ecosystem health, according to preliminary results published by researchers working for the European Union. “Controlling voles with bromadiolone reduces the amount of food available to predators and increases their risk of secondary poisoning when they eat the contaminated rodents,” project researcher Javier Fernandez de Simon, PhD, said in a press release. The study provides a model that may alleviate the impact of rodenticide use and provide a balance between on-farm pest management and sustainability.

There are several types of rodenticides available on the market, including acute poisons like strychnine, fumigants like phosphine gas, and anti-coagulants such as warfarin and bromadiolone. Anti-coagulants, the focus of the present study, work by blocking the ability of the body to form blood clots. Animals exposed to bromodialone and other anti-coagulants experience ruptured blood vessels, hair loss and skin damage, nosebleeds, and bleeding gums prior to death. These pesticides are generally applied through secured bait boxes that only allow rodent pests to feed, however secondary poisoning is a common occurrence, leading researchers to dub these rodenticides, in effect, as “super-predators.”

Rodents that ingest anti-coagulant pesticides are not killed outright, and can be easy prey for animals up the food chain, particularly owls, raptors, foxes, coyotes, and small mustelids like the stoats and weasels observed in the current study. To reveal this occurrence in the wild, researchers set up monitoring stations around rodenticide-treated and untreated sites where weasels and stoats frequent during the growing season. While the population of mustelids remained relatively unchanged at untreated sites, treated sites experienced notable declines. “As small mustelids can consume dead voles and we only found rodenticide residues in voles and small mustelid droppings from treated sites, we concluded that application of anticoagulant rodenticides in grasslands may generally reduce the abundance of small mustelids,” said  Dr. Fernandez de Simon.

Using a model, researchers found that anti-coagulant rodenticides were most destructive to other animals, acting most like “super-predators,” when populations of target voles were lower than 50 voles per hectare. However, when the model was adjusted and these poisons were applied in low quantities when vole populations were higher – 250 voles per hectare – predator populations were still able to grow, and successfully regulate vole populations by themselves. “This treatment protocol could reduce the impact of rodenticides on predator numbers, while maintaining relatively low densities of voles, thereby benefitting farmers’ interests,” Dr. Fernandez de Simon said.

Anti-coagulant rodenticides garnered public attention for the 2014 poisoning of a charismatic mountain lion named P-22, which frequents the “Hollywood” sign in California. Use of rodenticides in illegal marijuana grow operations has led to consideration of protected status for populations of fishers on the west coast. Many groups on the West Coast are working to replace the use of rodenticides with greater ecological diversity, and better preventative practices. Poison Free Malibu, which presented at Beyond Pesticides 36^th National Pesticide Forum, is pushing for the passage of California bill AB 2422, which would restrict the use of anticoagulant rodent poisons throughout the state.

For more information on managing rodent problems without toxic, “super-predator” rodenticides, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage. And to promote on-farm reduction of anti-coagulant rodenticides, support organic agriculture, which doesn’t allow this type of rodent poison, and requires any measure addressing rodent pests be guided by a pre-determined organic systems plan.

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

Source: European Commission Community Research and Development Information Service

(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2018) An insect’s gut microbiome plays an important role in conferring pesticide resistance, according to a new review published in the Annals of the Entomological Society of America. “Whether you’re looking at agricultural pests, household pests like cockroaches, or medical pests like disease-carrying mosquitoes, insects are great at adapting to whatever we throw at them, especially when it comes to different chemicals,” said lead author Jose Pietri, Ph.D to Entomology Today. The review adds to the numerous ways pests can evade the effects of chemical agriculture, reinforcing calls from recent studies showing that the best method of addressing this issue is to simply stop using synthetic pesticides and employ alternative pest management practices.

The authors identify two overarching methods through which microbes help confer resistance to toxic pesticides. The first involves the pest accepting a physiological trade-off, where a pest is able to better withstand an insecticide at the cost of losing its ability to regulate certain gut bacterium. For instance, diamondback moths resistant to fipronil and chlorpyrifos are found to contain higher levels of Lactobacillales, Pseudomonadales, and Xanthomonadales bacteria than non-resistant moths. While this trade-off affects the fitness of the organism, alterations of the bacterial community the pest is exposed to can reinforce and strengthen the pest. For example, culex mosquitoes that contain resistant genes can increase the likelihood that they will survive to adulthood through infection of a certain fungal parasite called Vavraia culicis.

The second method through which microbes could assist in conferring resistance to pests is directly through the bacterium. “There are several possible ways they can directly help insects deal with the toxins in insecticides, and one is a very direct mechanism whereby a toxin comes into the gut of an insect and, through enzymatic means, the microbes break it down and render it ineffective,” said Dr. Pietri. A specific example cited by authors was the development of fenitrothion (an organophosphate insecticide) resistance in bean bugs. During the nymph stage of the pest, the bugs pick up a soil bacterium called Burkholderia. Although generally uncommon, certain strains of Burkholderia have the ability to break down fenitrothion. However, when the chemical is continuously sprayed onto soil, fenitrothion-resistant Burkholderia become more common, leading to a greater number of bean bugs picking up the resistant strain of the bacterium.

This review underscores the variety of means insects can take advantage of in their environment to rapidly adapt to changing environmental factors. A 2013 study underscores this ability, finding that the common practice of “stacking” two or more Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins in genetically engineered plants did not work. Researchers assumed that pests resistant to the first Bt toxin would survive on the one-toxin plants, but die when consuming two-toxin plants because they had not yet developed resistance to the new formulation. However, pests selected for resistance to one toxin survived significantly better than caterpillars from a susceptible strain.

In the field, whether insect or weed, pests develop resistance because those that don’t die from toxic pesticide use develop some method to stop the chemical from causing it harm. A study published earlier this year in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution found that the only tried and true method to reduce weed resistance was to eliminate the use of pesticides sprayed on target weeds.

While this study may lead to attempts to halt resistance to chemical pesticides, investigations of how microbes interact with insect detoxification could provide insight into new methods of bioremediation, or ways to model how humans may respond to changes in gut bacterial composition. There is already amble evidence that pesticide use alters the diversity of microflora in the human mouth and gut.

For more information about how chemical pesticides affect the human microbiome, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article on Monsanto’s Roundup, and the transcription of David Montgomery’s Talk at the 35^th National Pesticide Forum titled Sustaining Life: From Soil Microbiota to the Gut Microbiome. Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association have been given the green light from a Washington, DC Superior Court judge to sue Monsanto based on the argument that glyphosate (Roundup) has adverse impact on the gut biome and resulting adverse health effects. And to read more about pest and weed resistance, see visit our Genetic Engineering webpage.

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

Source: Annals of the Entomological Society of America, Entomology Today

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2018) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s controversial plan for disclosing the underlying data supporting its regulatory science has a big blind spot –pesticides.  An analysis released today by Beyond Pesticides and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) points out that under Pruitt’s plan the public will still lack access to key data about the effects and efficacy of commercial poisons approved for sale and application in their communities and homes.

The proposed policy posted on April 30 in the Federal Register declares that it will “help ensure that EPA is pursuing its mission of public health and the environment in a manner that the public can trust and understand” yet it only applies to a very limited set of studies used to support certain EPA regulations.

It does not cover pesticide registrations, warning labels, use restrictions, or proof of effectiveness.  In the current process, the pesticide manufacturer produces the underlying data for these EPA approvals and controls access to it.  Thus, despite Pruitt’s sweeping claims of “transparency in regulatory science” –

• The public does not have access to the underlying data provided by the manufacturer to justify registering a new pesticide for commercial distribution;
• Industry will not have to provide the data used to assess health and environmental effects and farmworker impacts to set allowable dietary and non-dietary exposure limits; and
• On the product’s efficacy, the public also does not have access to the underlying data nor does EPA even review manufacturer data on product effectiveness, except for very limited purposes.

“To ensure full review, it is critical that the public and independent scientific community have complete access to safety testing data before poisonous pesticide products enter the marketplace,” said J. Routt Reigart, M.D., president of Beyond Pesticides. “Furthermore, the failure to label all ingredients in pesticide products used by the public runs contrary to the basic principle of informed decision making.”

In some pesticide decisions, such as conditional registrations, EPA grants new registrations and product labels without full information based on an agreement the manufacturer provides the data at a later date.  Pruitt’s plan does not require industry to present its data up front or to make that data publicly available.

“Pruitt’s plan does not enable the public to have any meaningful information about ‘environmental health risk or safety risk’ as he claims,” stated PEER General Counsel Paula Dinerstein. “Under a false flag of scientific transparency, Pruitt’s scheme hobbles scientific work used to protect the public but shields industry data that may demonstrate the public health peril.”

Secret Science in EPA Pesticide Regulation 

Access to data on pesticides is critical to protection of health and the environment EPA has proposed a rulemaking that purports to make science used in EPA regulatory decision making transparent and available to the public.  However, the proposal by its terms applies only to significant EPA rulemakings where EPA is seeking to protect public health and the environment, but not to matters such as pesticide registrations, where private companies are seeking authorization to market products that may be harmful to public health and the environment.  The pesticide registration and review processes are particularly lacking in transparency and opportunity for public review and access to data.

Data used to approve pesticides not available to the public
Pesticides are registered (authorized for use) based on studies and data submitted by the manufacturer (registrant), not based on science conducted or commissioned by EPA.  This registrant data is not available for public review until after the pesticide is registered.  The nonpublic data submitted by the registrant is used by EPA to assess health and environmental effects of the pesticide, impacts on farmworkers, and to set allowable human exposures through dietary and non-dietary routes – all without any opportunity for public review of the underlying data.

After registration, the public can access the materials upon which the registration was granted (which still may not include all underlying data) only through making requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a lengthy process.  Even then, much information is withheld as purportedly “confidential.”  If problems are identified that uncover a hazard from the pesticide, a member of the public would need to petition for a proceeding to cancel the registration, a much longer and unwieldy process during which the pesticide remains on the market.

EPA’s registration, registration review and cancellation of pesticides raise numerous issues regarding the application of legitimate scientific process, risk assessment, exposure assumptions, sensitive populations, and the “reasonableness” of what are found to be “acceptable” hazards. Transparency of agency processes and underlying data is key to allowing public participation concerning these issues.   Full disclosure of known and unknown adverse effects needed  EPA does not currently require that registrants disclose data submitted to EPA or placed on pesticide labels (including household pesticides) concerning the full extent of knowledge and/or ignorance of possible adverse effects, including data gaps and chronic health effects. Registrants’ exposure and toxicology studies are not released to the public so that any interested stakeholder can review them prior to a product being permitted on the market.

Conditional registration missing crucial data
Pesticide registrations under special circumstances, also known as “conditional registration,” allow widespread use of toxic chemicals that are not fully tested. Conditional registration of pesticides allows market entry for a product in the absence of certain data normally required for registration. As one glaring example, the agency came under scrutiny when it conditionally registered the neonicotinoid pesticide, chlothianidin, tied to dramatic declines in pollinators, without pertinent field data required on honeybees, even though the pesticide is known to pose risks to these vulnerable pollinators.

Efficacy data on pesticide products
The public does not have access to, and EPA does not review, manufacturer data on pesticide efficacy, even though the statutory registration standard requires weighing the risks of pesticides against their benefits.  Without efficacy information, the real benefits of a pesticide are unknown, and the reasonableness of pesticide use cannot be assessed. The lack of efficacy data review results in escalating and predictable insect and weed resistance, unnecessarily increases in pesticide use, and putting farmers at risk of crop loss and economic damage.   The only instance in which EPA evaluates pesticide efficacy is as a part of public health (not agricultural) pesticide registrations, and even this is without public disclosure or opportunity for comment.

“Secret ingredients” in pesticide products not disclosed
Currently, pesticide labels do not identify “inert” ingredients that have been classified as hazardous under a variety of environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. Disclosure would provide information about almost 400 hazardous chemicals in pesticide products.

Only active ingredients, not formulations tested
EPA does not require testing data on the full formulation of a pesticide product, including all of the inert ingredients.  Thus, data on the human health and environmental effects of the actual product on the market is entirely lacking.

The federal government needs a vision for pesticide policy across relevant agencies that seeks to replace outdated approaches and technologies reliant on toxic chemicals with green approaches advanced through incentives, assistance and restrictions. This cannot be achieved without full transparency and disclosure of toxic hazards of pesticide products in the marketplace. Without full information on pesticide hazards, access to underlying data on hazards, and a transparent assessment of the reasonableness of risk given the availability of less or non-toxic alternatives, the public is left in the dark. Credible reviews, subject to public oversight, are essential in EPA’s regulation of pesticides to prevent contamination of air, land, water, and food.

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

Sources: Paula Dinerstein [PEER] (202) 265-7337; Jay Feldman [Beyond Pesticides] (202) 543-5450

View the proposed rule

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2018) Beyond Pesticides and The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) today responded to a federal judge’s ruling against Monsanto Co.’s motion to dismiss the groups’ lawsuit, filed in April, 2017. The lawsuit challenged Monsanto’s safety claim on its Roundup (glyphosate) products as misleading and fraudulent. Monsanto displays a claim on its Roundup product label that states that the chemicals in the product “targets an enzyme bound in plants but not in people or pets,” when, in fact, the chemical adversely affects beneficial bacteria essential to the gut biome and normal body functions.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, the lead plaintiff in the case, said:

“In the face of EPA’s poor regulation of pesticides, misleading pesticide product labeling cannot be left unchecked. The court’s decision to allow our case to move forward, in denying Monsanto’s motion to dismiss, is critical to showing that the company is deceiving the public with a safety claim on its Roundup (glyphosate) label. Its advertising and labeling claim that Roundup ‘targets an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets’ is false, given the devastating harm that glyphosate has on beneficial bacteria in the gut biome. The disruption of the gut biome is associated with a host of 21st century diseases, including asthma, autism, bacterial vaginosis, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Crohn’s disease, depression, inflammatory bowel disease, leaky gut syndrome, multiple sclerosis, obesity, Type 1 and 2 diabetes, and Parkinson’s.

The science on the hazards of Roundup (glyphosate) are clear and Monsanto officials know it. With this case, we seek to ensure that the public is not misled by false advertising and product labeling in the marketplace. It is a critical step toward ensuring that people are fully informed before purchasing toxic products that can poison them, their families, and the communities where they live.”

OCA International Director, Ronnie Cummins said:

“Monsanto aggressively markets Roundup as ‘safe’ for humans and animals, despite newer studies indicating that glyphosate may be carcinogenic and its use may affect human and animal cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous and reproductive systems. No reasonable consumer seeing the claim on this product that glyphosate targets an enzyme not found ‘in people or pets’ would expect that Roundup actually targets an important bacterial enzyme found in humans and animals, affecting the health of their immune system.

Survey after survey shows that consumers rely on labels to guide their purchases and keep them and their families safe. When corporations mislead on the issue of a product’s effect on consumers and their families, they put everyone, but especially young children—in this case, playing in yards and parks—at risk, leaving the public no other recourse than to use the legal system to seek the removal of this misleading information.”

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, ruled that Beyond Pesticides and OCA presented enough evidence to support that Monsanto’s labeling of its flagship weedkiller, Roundup, misleads consumers.

Through their attorneys, Richman Law Group, Beyond Pesticides and OCA sued Monsanto on behalf of the general public, in Washington D.C., under the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, for misleading the public by labeling its popular weedkiller Roundup as “target[ing] an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets.” The nonprofits allege that this statement is false, deceptive and misleading, because the enzyme targeted by glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is, in fact, found in people and pets.

Beyond Pesticides is a national grassroots non-profit organization headquartered in the District of Columbia that works with allies in protecting public health and the environment to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. For more information, visit www.beyondpesticides.org.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. For more information, visit: www.organicconsumers.org.

Richman Law Group (RLG) is a boutique law firm specializing in consumer protection and civil rights. RLG is dedicated to serving the greater good by holding large corporations accountable for actions that harm consumers, the environment, and the general public. For more information, visit: www.richmanlawgroup.com.

CONTACT:
Jay Feldman, Beyond Pesticides, 202-543-5450, [email protected]
Katherine Paul, Organic Consumers Assoc.: (207) 653-3090, [email protected]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2018) The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) temporarily denied a permit to spray Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor with the toxic neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid. Your comments helped achieve the temporary decision and comments are now needed again to make the denial permanent. The public comment period closes on May 14, 2018.

Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, with a number of unique ecosystems, and among the most pristine estuaries in the U.S., have been targeted with a plan to spray the toxic neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid to kill the native burrowing shrimp in beds of commercial Japanese oysters. This insecticide use will have deadly effects on keystone aquatic organisms. Based on a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and public input, Ecology temporarily denied the permit.

Tell Ecology to restore the bays instead of spraying them!

Ecology bases its decision on these factors:

• Too great an impact on the marine organisms that live in the sediments where the pesticide application is proposed.
• Too much uncertainty about the long-term impacts associated with this pesticide.
• Negative impacts on fish and birds caused by killing sources of food and disrupting the food web.
• Even at low concentrations, imidacloprid has significant impacts on the environment.

Among the knowledge gaps found by Ecology are uncertainties over whether imidacloprid is effective for its stated purpose. These uncertainties are crucial, because no spraying can be justified if it is not effective.

The SEIS finds a number of uncertainties concerning the direct effects of spraying imidacloprid, including accumulation in sediments, long-term toxic impacts, impacts on zooplankton, sublethal effects, impacts on vegetation, impacts of degradation products, and the area that would be affected.

The SEIS does not evaluate synergistic impacts of imidacloprid combined with other chemicals (“inert” or non-disclosed ingredients, other chemicals used in the bays, and other pollutants) or other stressors. Among the organisms known to be at risk is the commercially important Dungeness crab, which has been shown to be susceptible to the effects of imidacloprid, and whose populations experience large natural fluctuations, putting them at risk of extinction.

Given the systemic mode of action of imidacloprid in crop plants, the permit cannot be approved without accounting for impacts on non-target animals consuming vegetation in treated areas.

Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor have been affected over the past century by human activity that has contributed to problems experienced by all who use the bays. The best alternative to address these problems is one that was not considered in the SEIS –restoring the habitat by removing stressors coming into the bays from streams flowing into them.

Please use or adapt and send the letter below to the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Letter to Washington State Department of Ecology:

I urge you to make final your temporary decision to deny a permit for the spraying of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor with any quantity of imidacloprid. Although the “no action” alternative is acceptable, the only really effective and protective alternative is restoration of the bays’ ecology.

Although the SEIS and other studies identify “immediate adverse, unavoidable impacts to juvenile worms, crustaceans, and shellfish in the areas treated with imidacloprid and the nearby areas covered by incoming tides,” the SEIS also identifies “knowledge gaps,” which must be filled before permitting the use of another toxic chemical in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

Crucially, the SEIS identifies uncertainties regarding the efficacy of imidacloprid for controlling burrowing shrimp. These uncertainties include questions of the extent and duration of the effect of imidacloprid, the lack of a treatment threshold, lack of data regarding resistance, lack of field research regarding clams, and efficacy of treatment in low temperature. Certainly, no use of imidacloprid can be supported without demonstrating efficacy.

The SEIS finds a number of knowledge gaps concerning the direct effects of spraying imidacloprid, including accumulation in sediments, long-term toxic impacts, impacts on zooplankton, sublethal effects, impacts on vegetation, impacts of degradation products, and the area that would be affected. These gaps must be filled before approving the use of any chemical.

Before allowing chemical use, Ecology must adequately address synergistic effects, including impacts of imidacloprid combined with other chemicals (“inert” ingredients, other chemicals used in the bays, and other pollutants) or other stressors. Among the organisms known to be at risk is the commercially important Dungeness crab, which has been shown to be susceptible to the effects of imidacloprid, and whose populations experience large natural fluctuations, putting them at risk of extinction.

Given the systemic mode of action of imidacloprid in crop plants, Ecology cannot approve use of imidacloprid without accounting for impacts on non-target animals consuming vegetation in treated areas.

Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor have been affected over the past century by human activity that has contributed to problems experienced by all who use the bays. Of the three options proposed, the No Action alternative is the best. However, what is truly necessary to address these problems is an option that was not considered in the SEIS –a plan to restore the habitat by removing stressors from streams flowing into the bays.

Thank you for your careful review of the SEIS and consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,

Submit comment by email: [email protected] or click here to:
Tell Ecology to restore the bays instead of spraying them!

(Beyond Pesticides, May 4, 2018) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed a new rule, on April 24, that, if adopted, will restrict the use of certain kinds of science research in the agency’s writing of regulations. Titled “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” the rule will permit EPA to consider only research studies for which the underlying data are publicly available when considering new “significant” regulations — typically, those estimated to impose costs of $100 million or more. Supporters of the rule say that EPA has, in crafting regulations in the past, relied on “secret science” — studies for which the underlying data cannot necessarily be accessed by members of the public.

At face value, this may sound reasonable. Administrator Pruitt and proponents call the proposed rule a plus for transparency that will boost public confidence in the science bases of EPA decision making. “Today is a red-letter day,” Mr. Pruitt told supporters at agency headquarters. “The science that we use is going to be transparent.” That so-called “transparency,” however, comes at a huge cost: the elimination of decades of scientific studies from consideration when EPA regulations are written.

In studies over the past few decades, researchers frequently collected data — often about personal, health, and medical status and practices — with subjects’ permission, and signed confidentiality agreements with those subjects, agreeing to keep the information private. Such data were anonymized and reported to the EPA with the requirement that subjects’ personal information not be made public. Trevor Nace of Forbes magazine writes of the proposed rule: “It literally throws out fundamental and hallmark environmental studies the EPA paid scientists to conduct and [which it used to] build the foundation of many of our air and water quality guidelines.” It should be noted that such studies have been rigorously peer reviewed, and vetted scientists can already obtain access to such anonymized data from the EPA, so the conservative claim that EPA has used “secret science” is misleading.

If enacted, critics say, the rule will cause researchers great difficulty in recruiting subjects who, understandably, would not necessarily want their data shared publicly. In addition, it would have particular impact on longitudinal (long-term) studies. Former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy commented, “The best studies follow individuals over time, so that you can control all the factors except for the ones you’re measuring. . . . But it means following people’s personal history, their medical history. And nobody would want somebody to expose all of their private information.” She notes that such a rule would have disqualified the federal government from using groundbreaking research, including, for instance, the studies that linked neurological damage to exposure to leaded gasoline, or the 1993 Harvard University “Six Cities” study that established the association between fine-particle air pollution and premature death.

Opponents of the rule say it would have enormous deleterious impacts on EPA’s ability to protect humans and the environment from pesticides and other toxic chemicals, air pollution, and other threats. Public health and environmental groups, and scientists say that the rule would largely prevent the agency from using landmark, long-standing studies on the harmful effects of air pollution and pesticide exposure because such research often involves proprietary information or confidential medical or personal histories.

For years, conservatives have worked to discredit independent research EPA has used to explain and justify its bases for regulation, such as banning some dangerous chemicals, or limiting air pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels. Academic and public health research have been particular targets. A rule such as the one proposed by Administrator Pruitt has long been sought by industry and some conservative politicians, including Representative Lamar Smith of Texas. A FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) yielded emails showing, among other facts, that Rep. Lamar met with Administrator Pruitt on January 9, 2018 — after he failed to get his 2017 “Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act” passed in Congress — to pressure Mr. Pruitt to implement the “Honest” bill’s goals from inside the agency.

UCS spokesperson Yogin Kothari said the emails show that “the plan was crafted by political staff with little input from scientists. They also show that EPA’s political appointees are mostly concerned about industry, rather than environmental or health protections. . . . This idea to restrict the use of science at EPA was hatched solely and worked on almost exclusively by political appointees who are doing everything they can to ensure that independent science doesn’t get in the way of policy decisions at the agency. . . . It’s an effort to stack the deck in favor of industry that EPA is supposed to regulate.”

The day before the announcement of the rule, 985 scientists sent a letter, organized by UCS, to Administrator Pruitt urging him not to move ahead with the rule change. The letter said, “There are ways to improve transparency in the decision-making process, but restricting the use of science would improve neither transparency nor the quality of EPA decision making. If fully implemented, this proposal would greatly weaken EPA’s ability to comprehensively consider the scientific evidence across the full array of health effects studies. This would negatively impact EPA public protections.”

The proposed rule is subject to a 30-day comment period, and science groups are rallying to block its finalization. Legal experts say that, if implemented, it could trigger judicial challenges, noting that “in unanimous decisions in 2002 and 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the EPA is not legally obligated to obtain and publicize the data underlying the research it considers in crafting regulations.” Richard J. Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard University, said Administrator Pruitt would be “walking into a judicial minefield” if he told EPA to stop considering certain studies in its rule-making. He indicated that would be an arbitrary and capricious decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rule-making, and would “subject any agency regulation issued based on such a defective record to ready judicial invalidation.”

There are any number of unknowns related to the fate of this proposed new rule, including its potential impacts on pesticide registration with EPA, as required under FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act). As if the registration process were not already labyrinthine — and for much of the public, inscrutable — enough, this rule’s potential influence is not yet clear. In applying only to “significant regulatory actions,” it appears that the rule specifically may not apply to individual adjudications or permit proceedings, and therefore, not to pesticide registrations or re-registrations. Under this interpretation, EPA’s “more transparent science” would seem potentially to hamstring science-based efforts to protect public health, but greenlight industry in registering potentially harmful pesticides. In this scenario, the pesticide industry will have been given a “pass” that could allow it to continue, more or less, with business as usual.

On the other hand, the rule might backfire on Administrator Pruitt’s and the Trump administration’s goal of making life easier for industry. As Lisa M. Campbell and James V. Aidala set out in the Pesticide Law and Policy Blog, “For pesticide registrants [aka pesticide manufacturers], the rule poses significant potential issues. For example, registrants [could end up] spending millions of dollars on studies necessary to register products that are proprietary and protected from release to those who might use them to register their own products without compensating the owners; issues with regard to EPA’s reliance under the proposed rule on these registrant generated and FIFRA required studies will need to be considered carefully. As another example, EPA’s review of epidemiology data underlying its conclusions regarding chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate pesticide requirements potentially may be subject to more stringent requirements than they previously were.”

Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator of EPA’s chemicals office, and formerly of the American Chemistry Council, has opined on what the rule might mean for pesticide registration, for chemical manufacturers, and for regulation of chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). “This directive needs to be revised. Without change it will jeopardize our entire pesticide registration/re-registration review process and likely all TSCA risk evaluations,” Dr. Beck wrote. She also notes that actually making underlying research data publicly available represents a massive undertaking. Dr. Beck said, “Making data available is very different than requiring a publication requirement. Such a requirement would be incredibly burdensome, not practical and you would need to create a whole new arm of the publishing industry to publish these types of studies that nobody is interested in. . . . [There is] no incentive for anyone, anywhere to publish them.”

Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, notes that “what Nancy Beck is ironically pointing to is [that] the same set of issues would fall on the industry, because it is not only whether the information would be made public or not, it’s the cost and burden associated with doing so.” The rule may also have a potentially chilling effect on the kinds of data industry would be willing to submit to EPA in seeking registration of pesticides or other chemicals.

Making such data public would likely be very expensive. There is not yet an official estimate of the costs associated with EPA obtaining and disseminating the data underlying studies, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has projected that Rep. Smith’s proposed bill, if enacted, would have cost the agency $250 million initially, and $1 million to $100 million annually. In 2015, the CBO estimated that the bill’s requirements about data would have reduced the number of studies EPA considered by half. Geophysicist Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences, has voiced her concern that the rule would prevent the EPA from being able to use the best available scientific evidence.

The Washington Post notes that this proposed rule “reflects a broader effort already underway to shift how the EPA conducts and uses science to guide its work.” Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, adds, “With false claims about transparency, the political appointees at the EPA are drastically restricting the ability of the agency to rely on science. They are ordering EPA employees to put on blinders and only see the science that they want them to see. They are sacrificing the health of Americans in favor of special interests, a disturbing pattern for this Administration. It’s no coincidence that the same people calling for this change have been funded by the petrochemical and tobacco industries for years. Pruitt has turned his back on the American people to stick his snout deep in the trough of corruption.”

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

Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/24/pruitt-to-unveil-controversial-transparency-rule-limiting-what-research-epa-can-use/?utm_term=.9b4dabe4f157 and http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/trump-s-epa-wants-stamp-out-secret-science-internal-emails-show-it-harder-expected

(Beyond Pesticides, May 3, 2018) Hawaii’s bill to ban the dangerous, neurotoxic pesticide, chlorpyrifos, passed its final hurdle this week in the state legislature. Governor David Ige is expected to readily sign SB3095 into law, in light of the unanimous support it received from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The statewide prohibition of chlorpyrifos will take effect beginning in January 2019. This legislative action marks the first time that any state in the country has passed an outright ban on the highly toxic organophosphate pesticide. While multiple scientific studies have determined that chlorpyrifos damages fetal brains and produces cognitive and behavioral dysfunctions, particularly in utero and in children, states have been slow to institute a complete prohibition, due to its widespread use in agriculture. Lawmakers in New Jersey and Maryland have recently tried unsuccessfully to pass similar bans. Hawaii’s bill contains a caveat that allows the state’s Department of Agriculture (DOA) to grant special permits for companies that argue that they need more time to phase-out chlorpyrifos, but that exemption will end at the close of 2022.

The new law also requires restricted use pesticide (RUP) users to report to the Hawaii’s DOA which ones they are applying on their land, crops, and in orchards, how much, and when and where they apply the chemicals. That information will be aggregated by county and publicly released in summary report on an annual basis. Such aggregated data enables researchers and policymakers to track yearly pesticide use trends by county and it can inform the development of public and environmental health protection policies.

But, according to Maui community activist, Autumn Ness, legislators substantially watered down the pesticide disclosure provision in SB3095, which was previously a robust, stand-alone bill. Instead of allowing public access to pesticide use data on an as-needed basis, which was what the advocates wanted, the bill requires DOA to only provide a summary of aggregated statistics on an annual basis. Since Hawaii is ground zero for chemical industry experimental testing of pesticides on cropland, the public has argued for the right-to-know what they are exposed to when pesticides drift off of test sites. Ms. Ness laments that this weak pesticide disclosure requirement will not automatically or easily allow communities to access site-specific data in instances where suspected acute exposures arise. Instead, the only way individuals or organizations may be able to view specific user data in a distinct location is to file a Universal Information Practices Act (UIPA) request, which legally requires an answer from DOA within 10 days but, in reality could take much longer, depending upon what is asked of the agency. This delay would not be helpful in cases of acute exposures.

In addition, the bill establishes a small schoolyard buffer zone, prohibiting companies from spraying highly toxic, RUPs within 100 feet of schools while they are in session. Similar to what happened with respect to the pesticide use disclosure provision, a strong, stand-alone pesticide buffer zone bill was originally introduced. It was added to the chlorpyrifos ban bill and severely weakened. The original provision was modeled on California’s pesticide buffer zone law. California’s law requires a quarter-mile pesticide exclusion zone around schools when they are in session, versus the 100 foot exclusion zone contained in the Hawaii bill. The only real similarities between the two is that they allow pesticides to be used near schools when they are not in session. In both cases, this could result in pesticides being sprayed during sporting events or other outdoor community activities that often take place on school campuses after hours.

Public pressure to prohibit chlorpyrifos has mounted in recent years due to increasing scientific evidence, which shows that even at low levels of exposure to pregnant women results in impaired learning, change in brain functions, and alter thyroid levels of children into adulthood. Females are especially at risk. A study conducted by the Columbia University Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) found that chlorpyrifos in umbilical cord blood samples corresponded with a decrease in the psychomotor and mental development in three-year olds. Additional data collected by CCCEH researchers demonstrated that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos experience developmental delays, attention deficit, hyperactivity, as well as other pervasive developmental disorders.

Knowledge of these gross impacts on developing fetuses and children motivated community members across the Hawaiian Islands to speak out against the use of chlorpyrifos and other pesticides near schools and to educate state lawmakers about their dangers. It took several years to create a groundswell of public support for the ban with people regularly speaking out against chlorpyrifos and other RUPs. Multiple court battles ensued, as did a relentless, high profile public campaign, backed by strong and unyielding leadership from key legislators.

Prior to the state legislature’s vote, advocates of the ban brought scientists and doctors to the Islands to discuss their research on high and low level exposures to noxious pesticides, describing in graphic detail the effects on fetuses, developing children, and adults. The Hawaii Reporter notes that, “Doctors wrote and spoke of their first-hand encounters with various health conditions known to be linked to pesticide exposure in large studies. Several physicians last year co-signed an appeal to the governor urging a ban on chlorpyrifos based on their concerns. They cited the findings of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) who noted that the risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous.”

This quest for advancing public health in Hawaii above economic interests is far from over, and statewide health and environmental advocates do not plan to wallow in their victory for long. In fact, this week, in the face of strong public pressure, the state legislature passed a SB2571, which bans the sale and distribution of sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate. The chemicals are toxic to developing coral reefs and increase the coral’s susceptibility to bleaching. They also have been found to damage DNA in adults, according to study of the chemical’s effect on reefs in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Once the Governor signs the bill, which is expected, it will take effect on January 1, 2021. And, again, Hawaii will lead the nation as the first state to ban toxic chemicals in sunscreen.

To oppose the continued allowance of chlorpyrifos and other noxious pesticides in your community, write or call your US Congressional Representative. Urge them to support the Protect Children, Farmers, and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017 to safeguard schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces from the unnecessary exposure to this neurotoxin. Learn more about the fate, effects, and impacts of pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. Also, consult Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix, which cites peer-reviewed scientific literature on the health effects of pesticides.

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

Sources:  Civil Beat; Hawaii Reporter; Beyond Pesticides; Huffington Post;

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2018) Granola, cereal, and wheat crackers all contain “a fair amount” of glyphosate, the herbicide in Monsanto’s popular Roundup, according to internal emails from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although the results of these tests have not been formally released, FDA had stated it will be conducting tests for glyphosate in food. Previous reports have detailed the presence of glyphosate, the chemical classified as a “probable carcinogen,” in a wide range of foods and in people’s bodies.

Internal emails obtained by The Guardian through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveal communication between FDA scientists regarding glyphosate residues in common foods. One email, dated January 2017, detail one scientist’s results from foods taken from his own home.

“I have brought wheat crackers, granola cereal and cornmeal from home and there’s a fair amount in all of them,” FDA chemist Richard Thompson wrote to colleagues in the email last year regarding glyphosate. He further went on to write that broccoli was the only food he had “on hand” that he found to be glyphosate-free.

According to The Guardian, another FDA chemist Narong Chamkasem separately found “over-the-tolerance” levels of glyphosate in corn, detected at 6.5 parts per million, an FDA email states. The legal limit is 5.0 ppm. A level above what is currently allowed would normally be reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but an FDA supervisor wrote to an EPA official that the corn was not considered an “official sample”.

The FDA is charged with monitoring and testing food samples for pesticide residues for residue levels. However, despite glyphosate being the most widely used herbicide in the U.S., used on over 100 food crops, the agency only recently announced it would test for glyphosate under mounting public pressure to do so.  At the same time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) decided to abandon its plans for testing the U.S. food supply for glyphosate residues. USDA had previously tested soybeans for glyphosate residue in 2011, finding that 90% of samples contained residues between 0.26 ppm and 18.5 ppm, barely under the allowed food tolerance level of 20 ppm. The federal government’s pesticide monitoring program, which is run jointly by USDA, FDA, and EPA, was criticized by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2014 for its failure to test for the widely used herbicide.

A report by Food Democracy Now! and the Detox Project, Glyphosate: Unsafe on Any Plate, found high levels of glyphosate contamination in popular American food brands, such as Cheerios, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish and Ritz Crackers, and Stacy’s Pita Chips. According to the report, the levels found in these products are above the levels associated with organ damage  (above 0.1 parts per billion(ppb)). Among 29 different foods tested, the highest levels detected were found in General Mills’ Original Cheerios, at 1,125.3 ppb. Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips were the next highest, at 812.53 ppb. Other reports of the widespread presence of glyphosate residues find the chemical in breast milk,  in German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and bread, as well as in nearly 100% of Germans tested.

The Guardian details that along with glyphosate, the agency has been trying to measure residues of the herbicides 2,4-D and dicamba because of projected increased use of these weedkillers on new genetically engineered (GE) crops. The FDA spokesman said that the agency has “expanded capacity” for testing foods for those herbicides this year. The official findings should be released later this year or early in 2019 as part of its 2016 annual residue report.

Glyphosate became a focus of media attention following the 2015 World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Since then, Monsanto has been hard at work trying to undermine findings that show its flagship product, glyphosate, is anything other than “safe.” However, its attempts to unduly influence and undermine scientific research and government review of its product has been disclosed widely in the press. EPA recently closed the public comment period for the human health and ecological assessments for glyphosate. On April 30, 2018, the day the comment period ended, public interest, food safety, and environmental organizations delivered over 165,000 public comments to EPA, urging the agency to ban glyphosate.

While federal oversight and regulation lag behind, environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or ban the use of glyphosate and other unnecessary toxic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through the Tools for Change webpage. This page is designed to help activists and other concerned citizens organize around a variety of pesticide issues on the local, state, and national level. Learn how to organize a campaign and talk to your neighbors about pesticides with our factsheets.

Consumers can also avoid glyphosate exposure by buying and supporting organic food and agriculture. Beyond Pesticides has long promoted the importance of organic in a sustainable food system, and works to promote the widespread transition of conventional farmland to organic production. Utilizing ecological pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive is the most appropriate and long-term solution to managing unwanted plants, or weeds.

To find out more about the work Beyond Pesticides is doing on organic integrity and actions you can take, check out Keeping Organic Strong, or see all the reasons to go organic, visit Eating with a Conscience.

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

Source: The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2018) On April 27, 2018, European Union (EU) member states backed a proposal to further restrict uses of bee-toxic neonicotinoids finding the pesticides’ outdoor uses harm bees. These restrictions go beyond those already put in place in 2013, and now all outdoor uses of clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam will be banned. Uses will only be allowed in permanent greenhouses where contact with bees is not expected. This historic move in Europe comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still drags its feet on finding neonicotinoids are too toxic for bees and other organisms and bans their use.

According to the European Commission, the protection of bees is an important issue since it concerns biodiversity, food production, and the environment. An EU committee approved the plan to tightly restrict the use of the insecticides, acting upon scientific advice this past February from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to tighten existing restrictions and protect bees, crucial pollinators. EFSA analyzed over 1,500 studies from academia, beekeeper associations, chemical companies, farmer groups, non-governmental organizations, and national regulators, and concluded that neonicotinoids do pose risks to honey bees and wild pollinators. In 2013, the EU placed a ban on the neonicotinoids on agricultural flowering crops, such as oilseed rape (canola), also based on an initial review by EFSA on the pesticides’ impact on bees.

Voting on the proposal had been postponed a number of times as countries were split on the move. However, the last meeting saw a majority voting in favor of the ban. Sixteen EU countries, including France, the UK, Germany, and Italy voted to ban the use of the three neonicotinoids. The new restrictions agreed to on April 27 go beyond the 2013 ban. All outdoor use of the three substances will be banned and the neonicotinoids in question will only be allowed in permanent greenhouses where no contact with bees is expected.

Environmental advocates welcomed the vote. Emi Murphy, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth said: “This a major victory for science, common sense and our under-threat bees. The evidence that neonicotinoid pesticides pose a threat to our bees is overwhelming.” Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis, welcomed the vote, stressing that “the Commission had proposed these measures months ago, on the basis of the scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority. Bee health remains of paramount importance for me since it concerns biodiversity, food production and the environment.” The European Commission will now adopt the new regulations in the coming weeks which will go into effect by the end of 2018.

In responding to The Guardian, Dave Goulson, PhD, at the University of Sussex, said the EU ban was logical given the weight of evidence but that disease and lack of flowery habitats were also harming bees. “Also, if these neonicotinoids are simply replaced by other similar compounds, then we will simply be going round in circles. What is needed is a move towards truly sustainable farming,” he said.

 Numerous scientific studies implicate neonicotinoid pesticides as key contributors to the global decline of pollinator populations. EPA’s own scientists have found that neonicotinoids pose far-reaching risks not only to bees but to birds and aquatic invertebrates. EPA is currently reviewing public comments on its preliminary ecological and human health risk assessments for the neonicotinoids clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran, and a preliminary ecological risk assessment for the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. EPA’s risk assessments find deadly impacts to birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, poisoned insect prey, and contaminated grasses. Researchers have found that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction. A recent study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers found neonics widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that harm aquatic insects, and potentially the aquatic food web—the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Canada’s pesticide regulatory agency has recommended banning the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, based on harms to aquatic ecosystems.

Given this historic move in Europe, U.S. regulators must also take action to protect sensitive species from toxic neonicotinoids. Help push EPA to take substantive action on neonicotinoids by urging your U.S. Representative to support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. With managed honey bee losses remaining at unsustainable levels and many wild pollinators at risk of extinction (1, 2, 3), it’s time, for the future of food and our environment, for the U.S. to finally protect pollinators.

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

Source: European Commission Press Release; The Guardian; BBC News

 Help Stop the Attack on Organic         Standards in the Farm Bill

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2018) Organic standards are under attack in the Farm Bill, H.R. 2, passed by the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and in language emerging in the Senate Agriculture Committee. This adds to the attacks on which we have previously taken action.

Tell Congress to Vote Against the Farm Bill if It Weakens Organic Standards

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) gives the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) broad authority and responsibility to ensure organic integrity. The Farm Bill contains provisions that:

• Will permit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sidestep the NOSB in allowing post-harvest handling substances (sanitizers) to be used in organic production;
• Change the classification of types of people who may be appointed to the NOSB by adding employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers; and
• Force consideration of the judgment of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when those agencies find a material to meet their own (less stringent) criteria for use.

These provisions are a direct attack on the strength of organic standards. When OFPA was passed and placed under USDA authority, Congress established a board composed of members of the organic community –farmers, handlers/processors, retailers, environmentalists, public interest groups, scientists, and certifiers— to provide direction to USDA and maintain the integrity of the organic label. Organic production arose out of a concern about hazardous chemical-intensive practices and unprotective laws and regulations; hence, OFPA and standards recommended by the NOSB and adopted by USDA for organic production are more stringent than standards adopted by FDA and EPA. Now that organic production has become a nearly $50 billion dollar enterprise, politicians are under pressure from large producers that would like to get a share of the organic premium without meeting current standards. We must stop this attack and protect organic as a real choice for health and environmental protection.

These Farm Bill provisions will give USDA greater direct and indirect power to change the materials allowed in organic production to favor producers who do not meet all the criteria traditionally considered to be required of organic certified operations –such as hydroponics, poultry houses without real access to the outdoors, and dairy operations without meaningful pasture. Organic means something important. Let’s keep it that way!

Tell Congress to Vote Against the Farm Bill if It Weakens Organic Standards

See two other problem amendments in the Farm Bill: preemption of local regulation of pesticides, and elimination of EPA’s legally mandated scientific consultations on pesticides with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Letter to Congress:

Please Vote Against the Farm Bill if It Weakens Organic Standards 

The Farm Bill (H.R. 2), as reported out of the House Agriculture Committee, will unacceptably weaken the standards now required for USDA certified organic food labeling. It does this by amending the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which currently gives the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) broad authority and responsibility to ensure organic integrity. The Farm Bill contains provisions that:

• Will permit USDA to sidestep the NOSB in allowing post-harvest handling substances (sanitizers) to be used in organic production;
• Change the classification of types of people who may be appointed to the NOSB by adding employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers; and
• Force consideration of the judgment of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when those agencies find a material to meet their own (less stringent) criteria for use.

Please vote against H.R. 2 if these provisions are not removed.

They are a direct attack on the strength of organic standards. When OFPA was passed and placed under USDA authority, Congress established a board composed of members of the organic community –farmers, handlers/processors, retailers, environmentalists, public interest groups, scientists, and certifiers— to provide direction to USDA and maintain the integrity of the organic label. Organic production arose out of a concern about hazardous chemical-intensive practices and unprotective laws and regulations; hence, OFPA and the standards recommended by the NOSB and adopted by USDA for organic production are more stringent than standards adopted by FDA and EPA. Now that organic production has become a nearly $50 billion dollar enterprise, politicians are under pressure from large producers who would like to get a share of the organic premium without meeting current standards.

These Farm Bill provisions will give USDA greater direct and indirect power to change the materials allowed in organic production to favor producers who do not meet all the criteria traditionally considered to be required of certified operations –such as hydroponics, poultry houses without real access to the outdoors, and dairy operations without meaningful pasture. This is unacceptable to me as an organic consumer.

Please vote against the Farm Bill if these provisions are not removed.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 27, 2018)  After more than five years of intensive negotiations, European Members of Parliament (MEP) overwhelmingly passed the long-anticipated, new organic certification and labeling regulations, with 466 voting in favor, 124 against and 50 abstentions. While the European Union (EU) Council of Ministers, must formally adopt the regulations, their easy passage is expected. Regulations will take effect in January 2021. The new organic regulations are purported to provide more clarity to organic producers and consumers and to harmonize organic regulation across the EU. But, they also are likely to fuel disharmony with the U.S. National Organic Program (NOP) by failing to act swiftly to curtail fraudulent organic exports and by prohibiting hydroponics systems of production in organic, which the US currently allows.

“The development of organic production is a political objective of the EU,” According to the EP’s background document on the regulations. As a strategy for increasing organic agriculture, which now encompasses 6.7% of EU agricultural land, MEPs intend for the new regulations to encourage more farmers to go organic, enhance consumer trust in the EU organic logo, and improve the quality of organic food. According to the European Parliament’s press release, “Strict, risk-based checks will take place along the supply chain” to facilitate product traceability and boost consumer confidence in the authenticity of the organic foods they buy.

Similar to the situation in the U.S. where organic fraud is on the rise, the EU acknowledges the problem by requiring stricter fraud precautions to be taken. Equivalency rules that currently allow non-EU countries to comply with comparable but not exact standards will be phased-out, within the extended timeframe of five years. New regulatory language encourages operators who produce, prepare, import or use organic products to report suspicious imports to the appropriate authorities. Member states are also authorized to take their own enforcement action to avoid fraudulent imports and to notify other member states of their action.

It remains to be seen if these measures prove sufficient for U.S, organic consumers and producers to feel confident that the EU is affording adequate fraud protections for the organic food that passes through its borders. In the US, where at least half of the organic products sold are imported, a recent Inspector General Audit of USDA concluded that it was “unable to provide reasonable assurances” that imported commodities labeled organic were indeed coming from certified organic farms. The situation of rampant fraudulent imports has created substantial economic hardship for US organic grain and soy farmers, where per bushel prices and market share have plummeted since 2015. Executive Director of the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing, Inc., John Bobbe, estimates that between 60 and 70 percent of organic imports may be fraudulent. “Some come through Turkey, where fraud is rampant, and some from India, where standards are not checked thoroughly for sanitation issues. He thinks Turkish organized crime is involved, with colleagues in Russia and Ukraine.”

The other important point of contention between the EU’s and U.S,’ organic standards is the EU’s explicit prohibition of hydroponic systems of organic food production to be certified organic. In reaffirming that organic systems of production depend upon thriving soil ecosystems, the EU regulation states that “plants should be produced on and in living soil in connection with the subsoil and bedrock. Consequently, hydroponic production should not be allowed nor growing plants in containers, bags or beds where the roots are not in contact with living soil.”

This provision flies in the face of the 2017 decision of the U.S. National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to allow soilless, hydroponically-produced organic food without requiring labeling. The NOSB overturned a previous 2010 Board decision to prohibit the practice despite widespread public opposition and demands to “keep organic in the soil.” In response, this spring U.S. farmers have created the Real Organic Project, which rejects hydroponic as an organic method and establishes other standards that the U.S. Department of Agriculture refused to implement, despite explicit recommendations from the NOSB. The Real Organic Project is establishing an add-on label to the USDA certified organic label that will let consumers know which commodities meet the standards of the organic law and consumer expectations. While hydroponic food production is already forbidden in the EU, the new regulations clarify instances where non-soil based, organic production is allowed such as in the production of ornamental plants, sprouted seeds, and herbs in pots. These allowances are justified in order to facilitate early growing stages of plants and in instances for which “no risk exists that the consumer is misled regarding the production method.”

Some EU countries, such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland, have been allowing the use of “demarcated beds in greenhouses” as organic, but in the agreement struck with Parliament those countries will be given 10 years phase-out the practice. An interim report is required to be produced on the status of those greenhouses within 5 years. Similar to the situation in the Nordic countries, some US organic certification agencies have been acting independently in the absence of regulations, certifying hydroponic operations and creating their own rules with respect to the organic soil requirement.  While some certifiers allow crops to be grown in an undefined “biodegradable substrate,” others do not. This has created confusion in the marketplace and angered many farmers and consumers who note that the text in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) specifically states that farmers shall “foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” It makes clear that soil health management is central to organic systems of production as evidenced by the detailed expectations of organic farmers in their annual organic crop and animal production system plan.

Other organic management practices strengthened by the new EU regulations include increasing data collection on organic seed and organic animal availability. The allowed use of conventional seeds and animals in organic production is scheduled to terminate by 2035, but that date could change depending upon the progress made. Mixed organic and conventional production by the same farmer will still be allowed, provided that the two systems of production are clearly delineated. To make it easier for small farmers to enter into organic farming, a group certification will be allowed. This issue has been raise on several occasions in the U.S. but has been rejected to date.

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

Sources:  News European Parliament; Food Navigator; Cornucopia

(Beyond Pesticides, April 26, 2018) Each year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes its Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™. The guide includes the “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15” lists of conventionally grown produce items that, respectively, are the most heavily tainted by toxic pesticide residue, and by contrast, have little if any residue. EWG analyzes testing conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Pesticide Data Program to arrive at its annual assessment. Its report for 2018 found that nearly 70% of conventional produce is contaminated with residue and/or breakdown byproducts of one or more of the 230 pesticides that USDA evaluated.

The top items on the 2018 Dirty Dozen list include strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples, and grapes. One-third of all the strawberry samples harbored 10 or more pesticides, and one sample showed residue of 22 different compounds. Pesticide contamination was found in 97% of spinach samples, 94% of nectarines, 90% of apples, 96% of grapes, and 99% of peaches. Topping the 2018 Clean 15 list of the least-toxic conventionally grown produce items are avocados (99+% of samples tested negative for pesticides), sweet corn (98+%), pineapples (90%), onions (90+%), and cabbage (86%). EWG again this year added hot peppers as the 13^th item on its Dirty “Dozen” list. Although they do not meet EWG’s standard ranking criteria, nearly 75% were contaminated, and often, with residues of neurotoxic insecticides.

Conventionally grown crops are subject to chemically intensive practices, including the use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and various petrochemical inputs, such as synthetic “fertilizers.” These stand in contrast to organic practices, which Beyond Pesticides endorses as the only safe and sustainable approach to agriculture. The risks of pesticide residues to human health are not the only reasons to go organic; these compounds also represent threats to farmers and farmworkers, and to our soil, water, air, biodiversity, pollinators, and rural communities. Beyond Pesticides’ database, Eating with a Conscience, evaluates impacts — on the environment and on farmworkers — of the chemicals used, domestically and internationally, on major food crops.

The top-level takeaway from the EWG report is that a huge portion of the U.S.population is necessarily consuming a virtual smorgasbord of pesticides every day, and — as Beyond Pesticides recommends — would do well to shift its consumption habits to organic. An apparent irony is that a healthful diet includes plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, yet much of the produce people consume likely comes laced with hazards associated with those pesticides. Those health risks include asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, and several types of cancer.

The EWG 2018 report references a recent study that found lower fertility rates associated with women’s consumption of high-pesticide produce. (Study subjects were women undergoing infertility treatment with assisted reproductive technology.) Other emerging evidence points to reduced semen quality associated with dietary exposures through consumption of food with residues. In 2012, The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a report that said that “children have ‘unique susceptibilities to [pesticide residues’] potential toxicity.’ The organization cited research that linked pesticide exposures in early life to pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.” Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with EWG, notes that “avoiding pesticides is especially important when women are pregnant [or] planning to get pregnant, or parents are feeding kids.”

It should be noted that there is no surefire way to wash pesticide residue from produce. Not only does produce have pores through which pesticides can be ingested into the body of the vegetable or fruit, but also, some pesticides are designed to penetrate into the interior tissues, making washing irrelevant.

For consumers, buying and eating organic is the obvious way to avoid the risks associated with consumption of chemical residues on and in food. Indeed, a 2015 study out of the University of Washington found that “people who report they often or always buy organic produce had significantly lower quantities of organophosphate insecticides in their urine samples. This was true even though they reported eating 70 percent more servings of fruits and vegetables per day than adults who reported they rarely or never purchase organic produce.”

The refrain that organic food is expensive belies the complexity and relative inscrutability of the dominant food system. Beyond Pesticides’ article, “The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food,” lays out the hidden costs and risks of conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture, and offers helpful ideas on eating organic on a budget. The Clean 15 can be a help in this regard, but the list doesn’t tell the whole story. Items on it exhibit minimal residues, but those “cleaner” food commodities may be grown with pesticides that can contaminate aquifers and waterways, persist in soil, compromise the health of farmworkers and local communities, and kill wildlife — all while not showing up at detectable levels on our food. Check out the Eating with a Conscience database to see, for example, what chemicals are used on avocados, sweet corn, and onions.

Beyond Pesticides advocates strongly for organics. USDA’s organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight. Organic certification ensures that food is produced using practices rooted in soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health — eliminating toxic chemicals, commonly used in the production and processing of food, that harm everything but the manufacturers’ bottom lines. Shifting to organics has benefits far beyond human health: the choices people make about what they buy and consume have direct impacts on the health of those who grow and harvest food, and on the health of the environment.

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

Sources: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews and http://www.ehn.org/worst-foods-for-pesticides-2558353116.html

(Beyond Pesticides, April 25, 2018)  A class-action lawsuit against two manufacturers of neonicotinoid insecticides is moving ahead in Quebec, Canada after an appeal to block the case by the Canadian government and the chemical companies, Bayer and Syngenta, was dismissed. In February 2018, the case, brought by a beekeeper, was allowed to proceed to trial by the Quebec Superior Court.

Quebec queen bee breeder, Steve Martineau, conducted tests on water and his dead and dying bees and found traces of neonicotinoids. His suit alleges that Bayer and Syngenta were negligent in the manufacture and sale of neonicotinoids in Quebec, and are responsible for damages that he and other class members suffered under Article 1457 of the Quebec Civil Code. Bayer and Syngenta challenged the application on a number of grounds including the assumption that they had manufactured the neonicotinoids which killed Martineau’s bees. The class in this case was authorized for all persons in Quebec who own or owned bees in the affected area since 2006. Mr. Martineau estimates he has lost about $20,000 a year to present due to the effects of neonicotinoids on his bee population (Martineau v. Bayer CropScience Inc. CALN/2018-007)

“We’re suing on behalf of Quebec beekeepers whose bees were non-productive or killed,” Mr. Martineau’s lawyer, Samy Elnemr said. In addition to the Quebec class-action suit, a Canada-wide lawsuit against neonicotinoid manufacturers is also being prepared to be filed and will be put before the courts soon.

On February 19, 2018, the provincial government introduced new restrictions on pesticides considered harmful to honey bees, including neonicotinoids. Under the changes, farmers will have to get permission from a certified agronomist before using certain pesticides on crops.  The restricted pesticides include three types of neonicotinoids, as well as chlorpyrifos and atrazine, which has been banned in Europe for more than a decade. To ensure the implementation of these new regulations goes smoothly, the Environment Ministry will establish a monitoring committee to oversee the process. The province has already allocated $14 million over five years to assist farmers in reducing pesticide risks and adapting to the new measures. Advocates say the new rules represent a compromise. These chemicals may continue to be used, but inserting agronomic experts with an eye for both the economic and health concerns surrounding the use of highly toxic pesticides into the process may be a strategy to significantly reduce pesticide use. The good news is that by also improving recordkeeping, Quebec’s strategy can be closely evaluated to ensure the approval process is not simply a rubber stamp for pesticide use.

Numerous scientific studies implicate neonicotinoid pesticides as key contributors to the global decline of pollinator populations. Research on neonicotinoids has been consistent in linking their use to reduced learning in bees, as well as other impacts, such as those on colony size, and reproductive success. Studies looking at effects on birds reports that songbirds exposed to widely used insecticides, like neonicotinoids, fail to properly orient themselves for migration, the first such study that adds weight to arguments that pesticides are a likely cause in the decline of migratory bird populations.  U.S. beekeepers lost an unsustainable 33% of their hives between 2016 and 2017.

Neonicotinoids are also detected regularly in the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms. A new report from the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) finds neonicotinoid contamination of the Great Lakes that threatens aquatic life.The most recent aquatic assessment for imidacloprid finds that imidacloprid threatens the health of U.S. waterways with significant risks to aquatic insects and cascading effects on aquatic food webs. As a result of risks to aquatic organisms, the Canadian pesticide regulatory agency has recommended banning imidacloprid, a decision on which has been delayed. In Europe, a recent survey finds that streams across the United Kingdom (UK) are contaminated with neonicotinoids. The European Commission met on December 12 and 13, 2017 to decide on a proposal to extend the 2013 neonicotinoid ban to all outdoor crops, but this decision was delayed. The issue is expected to be on the agenda again in 2018.

Help push EPA to take substantive action on neonicotinoids by urging your Representative to support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. With managed honey bee losses remaining at unsustainable levels and many wild pollinators at risk of extinction (1, 2, 3), it’s time, for the future of food and our environment, for the U.S. to finally protect pollinators.

Source: CBC Radio Canada

(Beyond Pesticides, April, 24, 2018) On April 19, 2018, an Appellate Court in California sided with the State of California, affirming that Monsanto’s glyphosate can be listed as a probable carcinogen under the state’s Proposition 65 and rejecting Monsanto’s challenge to law. The state will not only move ahead with warning labels on products that contain glyphosate but also prohibit discharge of the pesticide into public waterways.

Monsanto’s lawsuit challenged the 2015 decision by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to list glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, under California’s Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires notification and labeling of all chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and prohibits their discharge into drinking waters of the state.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.”  Under the Labor Code listing mechanism of Proposition 65, substances identified by IARC must be listed in the state of California as known to cause cancer. This listing requires warning labels on products and the listed substances are subject to limits on discharges into surface waters. California added glyphosate to the list of cancer-causing chemicals in July 2017 but was challenged by Monsanto and its allies for carrying out the state’s law.

Monsanto’s claim that the state was illegally delegating lawmaking powers to an unaccountable foreign agency, IARC. In rejecting that argument, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno preserved California’s authority to list glyphosate as a possible carcinogen.  Presiding Justice Brad Hill said in the court’s 3-0 ruling that the U.S. and 24 other nations belong to a council that governs the agency. “[The agency’s] reputation and authority on the world stage — and relatedly its funding — is dependent, in part, on its work being accepted as scientifically sound,” Justice Hill said. He followed that the state, through its voters, had exercised lawmaking powers to require warnings on potentially dangerous products, and legally left factual decisions to an internationally supervised body.

“All California consumers have the right to know that glyphosate is considered a probable carcinogen, and Proposition 65 ensures that the public obtains that knowledge,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director at Center for Food Safety that intervened in the case. “We are pleased that the California Appellate Court prevented Monsanto’s attempt to keep the public in the dark about potential hazards from their products.”

Monsanto has been hard at work trying to undermine findings that show its flagship product, glyphosate, is anything other than “safe.” However, its attempts to unduly influence and undermine scientific research and government review of its product has been disclosed widely in the press. This has prompted the European Parliament to set up a special committee to look into the European Union’s (EU) authorization procedure for pesticides, in light of their recent controversial review of glyphosate. It was reported that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) copied dozens of pages from a Monsanto study in reaching its conclusion that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” EFSA’s recommendation was supposed to provide an independent analysis for EU member states when deciding to renew the chemical. Last year, the European Parliament banned Monsanto lobbyists from committee meetings and digital resources, as well as prohibiting Monsanto lobbyists from meeting with any Member of the European Parliament. This was an attempt to limit Monsanto’s influence on the EU review process amid mounting public pressure.

In December 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declared that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic, conflicting with IARC’s 2015 classification. Some charge that EPA’s assessment relied heavily on industry studies to arrive at its conclusion, and ignored its own guidelines for assessing cancer risks. EPA now has a public comment period open for its human health and ecological assessment which conclude that the agency is not considered with glyphosate exposures, despite evidence to the contrary warranting a precautionary stance on the chemical’s continued use.

Action is needed to protect communities from glyphosate. Work to pass policies that restrict not only glyphosate but the entire range of toxic synthetic pesticides registered by EPA. Beyond Pesticides has resources to help you get started, including an organizing guide, model policy, and list of less toxic, organic compatible products. For more information on IARC’s glyphosate cancer classification and the IARC review process, see Beyond Pesticides’ article in our journal Pesticides and You.

Source: Center for Food Safety; SF Gate

(Beyond Pesticides, April 23, 2018) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting comments on its human health and environmental risk assessments of glyphosate (sold as Roundup™, Rodeo™, and many other products) until April 30. Evidence is mounting that glyphosate products cause cancer and many other human health and environmental problems.

Sign the petition asking EPA to ban glyphosate.

Despite the prevalent myth that this widely used herbicide is harmless, glyphosate is associated with a wide range of illnesses, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, genetic damage, liver and kidney damage, and endocrine disruption, as well as environmental damage, including water contamination and harm to amphibians. Researchers have also determined that the “inert” ingredients in glyphosate products, especially polyethoxylated tallow amine or POEA –a surfactant commonly used in glyphosate and other herbicidal products— are even more toxic than glyphosate itself. Monsanto, manufacturer of glyphosate, formulates many products (such as Roundup™ and Rodeo™) and markets formulations exclusively used on genetically engineered (GE) crops. Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, due in large part to the increased cultivation of GE crops that are tolerant of the herbicide.

This petition summarizes the reasons glyphosate should be banned. More information can be found in Beyond Pesticides’ comments.

Sign the petition asking EPA to ban glyphosate.

For even greater effectiveness, use the information in this petition and Beyond Pesticides’ comments to submit your own comments at Regulations.gov.

Letter/Petition

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361

EPA must cancel registrations of products containing glyphosate, based on information in the agency’s risk assessments and other available research. Glyphosate poses unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, as outlined below and explained in greater detail in comments submitted by Beyond Pesticides.

Despite the prevalent myth it is harmless, glyphosate is associated with a wide range of illnesses, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, genetic damage, liver and kidney damage, and endocrine disruption, as well as environmental damage, including water contamination and harm to amphibians. Researchers have also determined that the “inert” ingredients in glyphosate products, especially polyethoxylated tallow amine or POEA –a surfactant commonly used in glyphosate and other herbicidal products— are even more toxic than glyphosate itself. Monsanto, manufacturer of glyphosate, formulates many products (such as Roundup™ and Rodeo™) and markets formulations exclusively used on genetically engineered (GE) crops. Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, due in large part to the increased cultivation of GE crops that are tolerant of the herbicide.

Exposure to glyphosate has been increasing steadily. As a result of its widespread use, glyphosate residues are detected in tissues and excretions of farm animals, as well as human urine. Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready® soybeans, which are genetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant, and exhibit a nutritional profile different from that of organic and non-GE soybeans.

EPA must take a precautionary approach when considering continued and expanded uses. Although EPA’s assessment focuses only on the active ingredient, glyphosate, EPA must investigate the totality of glyphosate formulations and their potential for adverse impacts, which have the most relevance to human and environmental health. Glyphosate formulations are more toxic than the active ingredient alone, a fact recognized by EPA in its ecological assessment, which includes formulated glyphosate products in its review.

Although EPA considers glyphosate to be “of relatively low oral and dermal acute toxicity,” some glyphosate products are of higher acute toxicity, primarily due to eye and/or skin irritation. Symptoms following exposure to glyphosate formulations include: swollen eyes, face, and/or joints; facial numbness; burning and/or itching skin; blisters; rapid heart rate; elevated blood pressure; chest pains, congestion; coughing; headache; and nausea. In developmental toxicity studies using pregnant rats and rabbits, glyphosate caused treatment-related effects in high-dose groups, including diarrhea, decreased body weight gain, nasal discharge, and death.

As documented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, glyphosate causes cancer. IARC classifies glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen, which means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. 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 that cancer warning labels be placed on end-use glyphosate products in California. Glyphosate has been specifically linked to non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

Glyphosate causes DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Glyphosate and its formulated products adversely affect embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells, affect fetal development, and increase the risk for spontaneous abortion. Chronic, ultra-low-dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water results in adverse impacts on the health of liver and kidneys. Glyphosate is considered to be an endocrine disruptor. It can cause changes to DNA function, resulting in the onset of chronic disease.

Glyphosate disrupts a crucial pathway for manufacturing aromatic amino acids in plants and bacteria. It has been patented as an antibiotic. The destruction of bacteria in the human gut is a major contributor to disease, and the destruction of soil microbiota leads to unhealthy agricultural systems with increasing dependence on agricultural chemicals. Disturbing the microbiota contributes to a whole host of “21^st century diseases,” including diabetes, obesity, food allergies, heart disease, antibiotic-resistant infections, cancer, asthma, autism, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and more. The rise in these same diseases is closely correlated with the use of glyphosate herbicides, and glyphosate exposure can produce inflammation that is at the root of these diseases. Glyphosate appears to have more negative impacts on beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to flourish. Its use –like use of all antibiotics— increases antibiotic resistance.

Glyphosate has the potential to contaminate surface waters and is not broken down readily by water or sunlight. Surveys detect glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in surface water, as well as in rain, in soil and sediment samples, in ditches and drains, and in wastewater treatment plants.

Residues of glyphosate may persist in soils and cause harmful changes, potentially reducing crop yields. Concerns for soil health from long-term glyphosate use include reduction of nutrient availability for plants and organisms; disruption of organism diversity, especially in the areas around plant roots; reductions of beneficial soil bacteria; increases in plant root pathogens; disturbed earthworm activity; reduced bacterial nitrogen fixation; and compromised growth and reproduction in some soil and aquatic organisms.

Glyphosate use directly impacts a variety of non-target animals, including insects, earthworms, amphibians, and fish, and indirectly impacts birds and small mammals.Please cancel the registrations of glyphosate products.