(Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2019) Organic advocates are raising the alarm on what may be an unintended consequence of a provision in the National Organic Standards (NOS), the rules that govern certified organic agricultural production. The concern is that one National Organic Program (NOP) requirement for organic certification — a three-year waiting period during which land must be free of disallowed substances — is actually incentivizing the conversion of critical ecosystems, and fueling deforestation and biodiversity loss.

Conversions of native landscapes to working organic land to date include losses of: a California forest, Colorado prairies, a New Mexico wetland, and native sagebrush lands in Washington and Oregon. The Wild Farm Alliance has pointed out that, “These areas, that were once delivering critical ecosystem services and providing essential habitat for wildlife, are no longer performing the same functions and [it] would take hundreds of years to reverse the damage.”

No doubt this development was neither the intention of the NOP rule, nor an anticipated byproduct. But as Civil Eats notes, “USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] organic regulations mandate that farmers must ‘maintain or improve the natural resources’ on their farms, but there is no written requirement that addresses the natural resources that existed before the farm was established. . . . In some places, that three-year transition — in which the farm often has greater costs and sees a drop in yields — has essentially created an unwritten economic incentive to clear untouched ecosystems. In other words, if land that has never been farmed can be certified right away, it’s more profitable to farm that than to wait three years.” Such important native ecosystems will likely need the public’s help to protect them from such conversions.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) was created by Congress via the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The NOSB is a panel of 15 stakeholder members — from agricultural, environmental advocacy, organic certification, organic retail, food processing, and environmental science sectors — who operate in an advisory capacity to the USDA’S NOP. The NOSB is expected to make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on a wide range of issues involving the production, handling, and processing of organic products; it also has some responsibilities related to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances in organic agriculture.

OFPA, as noted in the revised NOSB recommendation, “Include[s] a clear bias towards protection of the natural resources present on an organic operation, including the physical, hydrological, and biological features of the farm. The soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife must be maintained or improved by the organic operator through production practices implemented in accordance with the Act and Regulations. This bias towards ecosystem preservation is also found within the organic marketplace with consumer expectations that organic farms and ranches will be examples of excellent land stewardship.” Conversion of native ecosystems, via the “loophole” incentive of the NOP “three year” rule, clearly counters the intent of the organic label.

The NOSB has paid attention to this issue since 2009, and has worked to remedy the three-year loophole, particularly in the past few years, after the Wild Farm Alliance began advocating for the NOSB to be more muscular on the problem. The Wild Farm Alliance advocated for a rule that would not limit the growth of organic agriculture, but that would, instead, redirect growth to the transition of conventionally, chemically managed land. The alliance also maintained that it is unfair to organic producers who have waited three years to transition land to have to compete with those farmers who convert native ecosystems overnight.

Ultimately, the board proposed a revision stipulating that if any land that included native ecosystems were cleared for agricultural production, that land would be ineligible for organic certification for a 10-year period — a much longer wait than the current three years. The aim was to disincentivize the practice of native ecosystem land conversion.

Many public comments and nonprofit advocates supported the recommendation on the principle that organic production practices ought not destroy native ecosystems. However, some organic farmers, as well as the Organic Trade Association and Stonyfield Organic, a large organic food producer, were concerned that this would inappropriately impact some organic producers — especially in the Northeast U.S. In that region, organic farms tend to be small-to-medium-sized operations, some of which encompass forested lands that were once in production, but which have grown back. (In fact, according to a history of New England agriculture and economy, approximately 90% of New England in the mid-19^th century was cleared and in agricultural production; a century and a half later, much of that land had been returned to a wooded state.)

Britt Lundgren of Stonyfield said, at the Spring 2018 NOSB meeting, “These farmers are not choosing to log land because the conversion period is faster; it’s the only land that is available for them to expand onto. The primary threat to the health of native ecosystems in the Northeast is not agriculture. It’s development. . . . If organic agriculture is going to remain a viable business in the Northeast in the face of immense development pressure, organic farms need to be able to expand in the most efficient way.”

Beyond Pesticides made comments in March of 2018 on the proposal, including: “Despite efforts of organic farmers to build and protect biodiversity, it is unlikely that the organic farm will achieve the same level of biodiversity and ecological resilience as the original ecosystem. On the other hand, the conversion of conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture to organic agriculture provides huge benefits to biodiversity through both the absence of toxic inputs and positive measures to increase biodiversity in soil-based systems that are required by OFPA or its regulations. Therefore, Beyond Pesticides supports efforts by the NOSB to eliminate incentives to convert high-value native land to organic production, as well as to increase incentives to convert chemical-intensive farmland to organic production.”

It also supported the 10-year period, and recommended, re: greater specificity about native ecosystems, this definition: “Native ecosystems can be recognized in the field as retaining both dominant and characteristic plant species as described by established classifications of natural and semi-natural vegetation. These will tend to be on lands that have not been previously cultivated, cleared, drained, or otherwise irrevocably altered. However, they could include areas that had been substantially altered over 50–100 years ago, but have since recovered expected plant species composition and structure.”

The NOSB then responded to the variety of feedback it received by updating the proposed rule’s language to define “native ecosystems” more specifically; the board believes this will mean the 10-year waiting period would not apply to farmers in such situations who are looking to expand their productive acreage. In May 2018, the NOSB approved (nearly unanimously) the revised, formal liminating the Incentive to Convert Native Ecosystems to Organic Production recommendation. The Wild Farm Alliance supported this revision, as it wrote in its issue brief on the matter.

Typically, once the NOSB has made a recommendation, the NOP puts it on the rulemaking agenda, develops a rule proposal on the basis of the recommendation, solicit public comment, and then develop a final rule. Yet the NOP has taken no action to bring the recommendation into its rulemaking process. This is unfortunately not surprising in the era of the Trump administration, which has been marked by broad efforts to reduce, stall, and sometimes ignore regulation in and across agencies. The USDA is no different in this regard — particularly with Sonny Perdue at the helm of USDA. (He has been criticized by scientists, environmental and health advocates, and small farmers for being anti-science and being far too cozy with industrial interests.)

As noted, public pressure on the USDA may help push NOP to “do its duty” and bring the NOSB recommendation forward to the rulemaking agenda. This is a critical step in protecting at-risk, and nearly irretrievable, native ecosystems. Stay current with advocacy and action on issues in organics through Beyond Pesticides coverage of organics and keeping organic strong.

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

Source: https://civileats.com/2019/12/16/does-a-loophole-in-organic-standards-encourage-deforestation/

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2019) Identifying ongoing risk to endangered species, the environmental group Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) announced an intent to sue California pesticide regulators to cancel the registration of four rodenticides in California. The suit seeks to expand the prohibition of use by the general consumer to include agricultural users and licensed pest-control operators. The group calls for protection of the endangered San Joaquin kit foxes, California condors, and 11 other endangered species from these rat poisons.

Rodenticides are grouped into three categories: first-generation anticoagulants, second-generation anticoagulants, and non-anticoagulants. Both first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides interfere with blood clotting in mammals and cause death from hemorrhage. Animals can be poisoned by eating the bait directly, or by consuming a poisoned animal (secondary poisoning). Secondary poisoning poses the greatest risk to wildlife. Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), such as brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone and difenacoum, are more likely to cause secondary poisonings because they persist in body tissue for extended periods of time. These four poisons are the focus of this lawsuit.

In 2014, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) banned the use of SGARs for public consumers. Advocates were motivated by the need to protect children and wildlife from these dangerous chemicals. A 2011 Annual Report of the American Association on Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System reported a total of 12,886 rodenticide exposures in the U.S., with nearly 80% of those cases involving children aged five or younger. The death of a charismatic mountain lion, P-22, from exposure to anticoagulant pesticides drew widespread attention and motivated public action. However, simply banning private use of these toxic chemicals does not adequately protect wildlife.

In 2018, CDPR analyzed 11 wildlife studies and found evidence of second-generation anticoagulants in 88% bobcats and 90% of mountain lions that were tested.  The California Department of Fish and Wildlife found SGARs in 92% of the 68 tested dead mountain lions. This March, the National Park Service found the remains of P-47, a 150-pound mountain lion, after his collar sent a “mortality signal.” The necropsy discovered internal hemorrhaging in the lion’s head and lungs, and lab results showed a cocktail of six different anticoagulant compounds from rat poisons.

“There was no indication that he was unwell,” National Park Service spokeswoman Kate Kuykendall said of P-47. “And visibly he looked fine in the photos we were getting. Unless the animal develops mange, there’s really no way to know that a mountain lion is being poisoned until it’s too late.”

Advocates put their efforts behind a state bill, AB 1788, that would have banned SGARs. It was killed for the year in August when the bill’s author Rep. Bloom pulled the bill from the Senate Appropriations Committee, largely due to vigilant lobbying by pest control groups.

The lawsuit seeks to require CDPR to enforce the Endangered Species Act by and remove these dangerous pesticides out of circulation in the state of California. CBD put forth in its 60-day notice the claim that ESA-listed species are frequently poisoned and killed by SGARs, citing data from the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation, and independent scientific research.  

Jonathan Evans, legal director of the Center’s environmental health program, stated, “We must put an end to the slow, painful deaths of wildlife from these reckless super-toxic poisons. With safer alternatives on the market today, it’s time for California to prohibit these dangerous poisons.”

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: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2019) France is making headlines this month in the great, global glyphosate (Roundup) debate. Last week, the French health and safety agency, ANSES (Agence Nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environment et du travail or the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety), made preliminary decisions within its review of authorizations for the 69 glyphosate (Roundup) weed killer products allowed for sale in the country. ANSES called for immediate withdrawal of authorization for 36 of those products “due to a lack or absence of scientific data which would allow all genotoxical risk to be ruled out.” The agency also announced it has denied authorization of 4 out of 11 glyphosate-based products submitted for approval since January, 2018.

According to ANSES, the 36 pesticides taken off the market represent almost 75% of glyphosate-based products sold in France for both agricultural and non-agricultural uses. The agency strengthened its framework for requirements regarding glyphosate following the 2017 European Union (EU) re-evaluation and 5-year approval of the active ingredient glyphosate. ANSES now requires that companies provide additional data considering health and environmental risks, particularly regarding genotoxicity. The provisions mandate specific studies be carried out using “standardized and robust methods.”

French president Emmanuel Macron had promised in 2017 to phase out all uses of glyphosate-based weed killers by 2021, but in January of this year reversed himself, stating, “I’m not going to lie to you, it’s not true.” During a public debate, he said that if the ban moved forward he would be “completely killing some sectors.” After that declaration, advocates vowed to use a January court decision to go after glyphosate-based products in the market; A court in Lyon ruled at the beginning of the year that the 2017 approval of Roundup360 had not respected a “precautionary principle” in failing to consider potential health risks. From the recent evidence, it seems that the tactic is working.

Glyphosate is a broadleaf herbicide that is determined a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization. It has garnered worldwide controversy due to environmental concerns and high-profile lawsuits. However, government action has been hard-won in only some countries. In Europe, particularly, the deliberation on this popular toxic product is lively. In 2018, six ministers of agriculture or environment from France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Malta signed a letter to EU officials asking for the EU executive to conduct a study and investigate alternatives. They asked for an “exit plan” from the use of glyphosate-based products.

Some countries within the EU have gone further by taking matters into their own legislation:

• Austria: Austria announced a plan to ban glyphosate within the year in June of 2019 and was set to implement the ban beginning January 1, 2019. However, a legal roadblock popped up in December of 2019 because the country didn’t notify the EU’s executive commission of the draft law. It is not immediately clear what will become of the ban.
• Belgium: Proposed ban on individual, non-professional use of glyphosate in 2017 and began enforcing the ban in 2018.
• Czech Republic: Put strict restrictions on the use of glyphosate in 2018. The Agricultural Minister Miroslav Toman stated they “will only be employed in cases when no other efficient method can be used.”
• Denmark: Applied new rules in 2018 restricting use on post-emergent crops.
• France: President Emanuel Macron promised a ban by 2021 but has since retracted that deadline. 36 of the 69 glyphosate-based products being reviewed by the health and safety agency ANSES have been banned.
• Germany: Bayer’s home country is in the process of phasing out glyphosate use, to end in a permanent ban in 2023.
• Italy: The Ministry of Health banned glyphosate use in public areas and as a pre-harvest spray in 2016.
• Netherlands: Instated a ban on all non-commercial uses of glyphosate-based herbicides in 2015.

With all the increased attention on glyphosate and its risks, there is more reason than ever to advocate for its elimination. However, Beyond Pesticides, invites the public to beware of replacements — a different toxic pesticide is not necessarily better. We urge those concerned about glyphosate exposure to support organic systems that do not rely on hazardous, carcinogenic pesticide alternatives. To learn about all the reasons to “go organic” and advocate for organic integrity, see Eating with a Conscience and Keeping Organic Strong.

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

Sources: Reuters, Bloomberg, Sustainable Pulse, Baum Hedlund Law

(Beyond Pesticides, December 17, 2019) South Asian immigrants to the U.S. may be at increased risk of diabetes due to prior exposure to high levels of DDT, research published by the University of California Davis earlier this month indicates. The study highlights a blind spot for health care in the U.S., researchers say. “Our findings evoke a new interpretation of Rachel Carson’s famous book Silent Spring, in that the high DDT exposures of South Asian immigrants in the U.S. currently fall on deaf ears in the U.S.,” said lead author Michele La Merrill, PhD an associate professor in the UC Davis Department of Environmental Toxicology. “Although DDT remains in use in other nations and migration globalizes these exposures, people in the U.S. often mistakenly regard DDT exposure as no longer relevant to our society due to its ban in this country nearly 50 years ago.”

When compared to other race and ethnic groups, South Asian immigrants (individuals from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan), are at greater risk of developing diabetes, even when adjusting for potential confounders such as age and obesity. Authors of the study hypothesized that this was a result of past exposure to high levels of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), as past studies have found strong connections between POP exposures and the disease.

Researchers tested their inference by enrolling 147 participants living in the San Francisco Bay Area, aged 45 to 84. Each individual underwent a battery of tests, including blood sugar and diabetes status, body weight, and blood plasma levels of various POPs.

Levels of POPs in study participants were considerably higher than amounts detected in the average American population, even though most immigrants tested had been in the U.S. for an average of 26 years. Higher blood plasma levels of DDT correspond with an increased likelihood an individual is obese, has prediabetes or diabetes, and has fatty liver, even when adjusting for age, sex, years in the U.S., education level, and amount of fish protein consumed on average. Importantly, researchers found DDT is associated with higher levels of liver fat and circulating insulin independent of whether an individual is obese, indicating a strong link between the chemical and disease.

Despite the U.S. ban of DDT, its use has continued around the globe, and in particular on the Indian subcontinent where it is still used as a mosquito adulticide. Given the strong propensity for the chemical to bind to fat, it is not surprising that individuals are dealing with the effects of exposure that occurred decades ago.

DDT and other chlorinated POPs have been linked to diabetes in the past. A 2013 study found individuals with higher concentrations of DDT are four times more likely to develop type two diabetes than those with lower rates. A 2010 study found that even low-dose exposure to certain POPs may play a role in the increased incidences of diabetes. And a separate study released in 2011 found that elderly individuals who had been exposed to organochlorine pesticides are up to three times as likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

DDT has long been connected to a wide array of human health problems beyond diabetes. A long line of recent studies associated with the negative health effects of DDT include non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as breast cancer, autism, reproductive problems, and Vitamin D deficiency. Research from Washington State University in 2013 found that DDT can result in multi-generational impacts that increase the chance that the great grandchildren of exposed individuals will become obese.

Hundreds of billions of dollars of health care costs are spent each year treating diabetes in the US. It is critical that we invest in understanding the etiology of the disease, as well as focus on ways to prevent future cases. With far too many diseases in the US associated with pesticide exposure, reducing the use of these toxins in the management of pests is a critically important aspect of safeguarding public health and addressing cost burdens for local communities, particular those that are minority and underserved. Learn more about the dangers both past and present pesticide use pose through Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: UC Davis, Environmental Science and Technology

(Beyond Pesticides, December 16, 2019) Thousands of wild and domestic carnivores will continue to be poisoned by hydrogen cyanide after the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-approved the use of M-44 “cyanide bombs” earlier this month. Cyanide bombs are small, poison-filled land mines baited with food and placed on rural land with the intent of killing predators that prey on grazing livestock. Along with the extremely toxic Compound 1080, these bombs threaten both domestic and wild non-target animals.

Tell your Congressional Representative to support H.R. 2471, banning the use of Compound 1080 and M-44 cyanide bombs for predator control. Thank those who have already co-sponsored.

Everything is wrong with the use of these poisons.

They poison non-target animals, including humans and pets. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services, M-44s killed 13,232 animals in 2017. Of these, more than 200 deaths were nontarget animals, including family dogs, a wolf, opossums, raccoons, ravens, and skunks. Wildlife Services is one of the agencies allowed to set M-44s, and is notorious for poor data collection. Compound 1080 is one of the deadliest poisons on earth and has no antidote. It is now allowed to be used in the U.S. only in bladders worn as collars by livestock. Although a few predators are poisoned when they puncture the bladders, other animals are killed through secondary poisoning when they consume the carcasses of poisoned animals.

They promote livestock production by absentee ranchers—mostly on public lands—who set loose animals to graze without watching over them. Alternatives to poisons include human presence (shepherds), predator-proof fencing, guard animals, electronic sound and light devices, biological odor repellents, night penning, shed lambing, and carcass removal. Unlike poisons, all of these alternatives carry the additional benefit of being non-lethal.

They kill predators who are an essential part of the ecology. After many years of killing wolves, Aldo Leopold came to understand the need for them:

I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.

Public sentiment is overwhelmingly opposed to the use of the poisons. Of more than 22,400 people who submitted comments on EPA’s proposal on the cyanide bombs, only ten asked the EPA to renew its registration of M-44s. Despite this overwhelming public opposition, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is renewing the products with only minor changes to the labels that govern their use.

A bi-partisan bill introduced by Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL),  in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 2019, will eliminate the use cyanide bombs and compound 1080.

Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor H.R. 2471, banning the use of Compound 1080 and M-44 cyanide bombs for predator control. Thank those who have already co-sponsored.

Letter to Congress

Thank you.

I am writing to thank you for co-sponsoring H.R. 2471, the Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 2019, which will eliminate the use of Compound 1080 and M-44 cyanide bombs for predator control.

Or request to sign on:

I am writing to ask you to co-sponsor H.R. 2471, the Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 2019, which will eliminate the use of Compound 1080 and M-44 cyanide bombs for predator control.

Unless it is passed, thousands of wild and domestic carnivores will continue to be poisoned by hydrogen cyanide after EPA re-approved the use of M-44 “cyanide bombs” earlier this month. Cyanide bombs are small, poison-filled land mines baited with food and placed on rural land with the intent of killing predators that prey on grazing livestock. Along with the

extremely toxic Compound 1080, these bombs threaten both domestic and wild non-target animals.

Everything is wrong with the use of these poisons.

* They poison non-target animals, including humans and pets. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services, M-44s killed 13,232 animals in 2017. Of these, more than 200 deaths were nontarget animals, including family dogs, a wolf, opossums, raccoons, ravens, and skunks. Wildlife Services is one of the agencies allowed to set M-44s, and is notorious for poor data collection. Compound 1080 is one of the deadliest poisons on earth and has no antidote. It is now allowed to be used in the U.S. only in bladders worn as collars by livestock. Although a few predators are poisoned when they puncture the bladders, other animals are killed through secondary poisoning when they consume the carcasses of poisoned animals.

* They promote livestock production by absentee ranchers—mostly on public lands—who set loose animals to graze without watching over them. Alternatives to poisons include human presence (shepherds), predator-proof fencing, guard animals, electronic sound and light devices, biological odor repellents, night penning, shed lambing, and carcass removal. Unlike poisons, all of these alternatives carry the additional benefit of being non-lethal.

* They kill predators who are an essential part of the ecology. After many years of killing wolves, Aldo Leopold came to understand the need for them:

“I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer. And perhaps with better cause, for while a buck pulled down by wolves can be replaced in two or three years, a range pulled down by too many deer may fail of replacement in as many decades. So also with cows. The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea.”

Public sentiment is overwhelmingly opposed to the use of the poisons. Of more than 22,400 people who submitted comments on EPA’s proposal on the cyanide bombs, only ten asked the EPA to renew its registration of M-44s. Despite this overwhelming public opposition, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is renewing the products with only minor changes to the labels that govern their use.

H.R. 2471, the Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 2019, will eliminate the use cyanide bombs and compound 1080 as predator poisons. Please co-sponsor H.R. 2471.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, December 13, 2019) The findings of a new Canadian study will be cold comfort for parents whose babies and children have consumed baby formula constituted with fluoridated drinking water. Scheduled for January 2020 publication in Environment International, the research paper, titled “Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort,” reports a significant drop in IQ for such children, compared to formula-fed children living in non-fluoridated areas.

Researchers found that for each 0.5 mg/L increase in fluoride concentration in drinking water, there was an average decrease of 4.4 IQ points among preschool children who were formula-fed during their first six months of life. The scientists found no significant association between water fluoride concentration and IQ among exclusively breastfed children. Further, the paper’s findings suggest that exposure to fluoride, both pre- and postnatally, has greater impact on the development of non-verbal intelligence than on that of verbal intelligence. The co-authors note, “These findings suggest that using optimally fluoridated water (0.7 mg/L) to reconstitute infant formula may diminish the development of intellectual abilities in young children, particularly for non-verbal abilities.”

The research team, out of York University in Toronto, examined nearly 400 mother–child pairs. The subjects were part of the Maternal–Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) project, and hailed from six Canadian cities. Status of municipal drinking water in the resident cities of the subjects broke down to approximately 38% fluoridated and 62% non-fluoridated. When the children were between 30 and 48 months old, the mothers completed a questionnaire that asked about infant feeding (formula vs. breast milk vs. a combination of the two), and duration and timing of such feeding. Fluoride exposures were estimated via municipal water treatment data, and the feeding data for those subjects in the formula-fed (FF) and breastfed (BF) groups of subjects. IQ was then assessed via the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-III.

The touted benefit of fluoride is the reduced incidence of dental caries once teeth have erupted and fluoride is topically applied. There is no benefit to use of fluoridated water for infants whose primary teeth have not erupted, and indeed, there would appear to be distinct downsides. Given this study’s results, the following facts take on greater significance: the researchers indicate that “formula-fed infants who reside in fluoridated areas have a 70-fold higher intake of fluoride than exclusively breastfed infants,” and “formula-fed infants also retain more fluoride than breastfed infants because infants have a limited capacity to excrete fluoride before renal function reaches its full capacity at about two years of age.”

In addition, the researchers noted that their estimate of fluoride intake among formula-fed infants (who live in communities with fluoridated water) may underestimate actual exposures because they did not include fluoride from other sources, such as infant formula itself, toothpastes, or foodstuffs. Thus, they say, the association between fluoride and lowered IQ scores among formula-fed infants may be even stronger than that in their analysis.

In reporting on an earlier study from the MIREC project, Beyond Pesticides wrote a bit about the history of fluoridation of water: “Before fluoride dental products were widely available, the U.S. Public Health Service introduced water fluoridation in the 1950s to reduce dental problems. In 2015, the U.S. lowered the optimal fluoride concentration from 0.7-1.2mg/L to 0.7mg/L after overexposure to fluoride caused 68% of adolescents to have enamel fluorosis — a disorder characterized by hypomineralization of tooth enamel appearing as discoloration and sometimes causing physical damage to the tooth.”

The pros and cons of fluoride in drinking water have been debated for decades. In the early 20^th century, scientists began linking the few communities whose drinking water had high levels of naturally occurring fluoridation with lower levels of dental caries. In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan began adding fluoride to its water supply, and increasing numbers of municipalities followed suit as studies began to show lower rates of cavities in schoolchildren in fluoridated communities.

An event causing early concern about fluoridation was a 1990 animal experiment that appeared to show equivocal (uncertain) evidence, in male rats, that fluoridated water fed to them yielded a high number of cases of osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer. Subsequent studies and reports, in 1991, 1993, 1999, and 2011, have all underscored the conclusion that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer.

In 2015, the Cochrane Collaboration — a global, nonprofit, independent network of researchers and health care professionals known for rigorous scientific review of public health policy — published its findings, based on an analysis of 20 studies on water fluoridation. The collaborative group evaluated the effects of fluoride in water on the prevention of tooth decay and dental fluorosis; it found that, although fluoridation does tend to reduce dental caries in children, “no studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review’s inclusion criteria.”

In addition, the report concluded that earlier (pre-1975) research studies on water fluoridation were deeply flawed, and therefore, their conclusions unreliable. It went on to say that “fluoride itself may be dangerous at high levels. Excessive fluoride causes fluorosis — changes in tooth enamel that range from barely noticeable white spots to staining and pitting. Fluoride can also become concentrated in bone — stimulating bone cell growth, altering the tissue’s structure, and weakening the skeleton. . . . Perhaps most worrisome is preliminary research in laboratory animals suggesting that high levels of fluoride may be toxic to brain and nerve cells. And human epidemiological studies have identified possible links to learning, memory, and cognition deficits.”

Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, commented on the Cochrane Collaboration report, saying “We should recognize that fluoride has beneficial effects on dental development and protection against cavities. But do we need to add it to drinking water so it gets into the bloodstream and potentially into the brain? To answer this, we must establish three research priorities.” Those are: (1) ensure that fluoridation is done to no greater than the necessary level for dental medical purposes; (2) ensure that fluoridation doesn’t increase risks of harmful health outcomes; especially needed is basic animal research that would identify how fluoride may be toxic to developing brains; and (3) identify populations that may be very vulnerable to drinking water fluoridation, e.g., formula-fed babies or patients undergoing dialysis, so that their water can come from a lower-fluoride source. The subject Canadian study’s results address the third of those priorities.

A 2012 meta-analysis published by Environmental Health Perspectives, and referenced in 2019 reporting by Beyond Pesticides, said that its results suggested that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that can impact neurodevelopment, and can do so at exposures much lower than those that can cause toxicity in adults. As previously noted, in 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lowered the recommended level of fluoridation in drinking water because of concerns about dental fluorosis. At that time, Dr. Grandjean called this a “positive development,” but recommended that the level be reduced further because of potential health risks of aggregate fluoride exposure, including neurodevelopmental and thyroid anomalies.

Beyond Pesticides has covered a related fluoride issue in its advocacy against food uses of the insecticide sulfuryl fluoride (typically, for post-harvest fumigation), a neurotoxic compound often used against termites, bedbugs, roaches, and rodents that is also associated with reduced IQ in children. Use of this pesticide was first permitted in food production in 2004. Advocates have charged that, apart from the risks of acute exposures, in combination with fluoride use in water fluoridation, its food uses and subsequent exposure potential create unacceptable risks under EPA and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) scientific determinations.

After a 2006 petition by Beyond Pesticides, Fluoride Action Network, and Environmental Working Group, in 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to eliminate agriculture and food related applications of the compound, and to phase the elimination over a three-year period. The agency agreed that under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, it should calculate the aggregate exposure risks associated with fluoride use in food and water.” As Beyond Pesticides reported at that time: “The agency plans to cancel all allowable pesticide residue levels (tolerances) for the chemical, finding that, when residues on food pare combined with fluoridated drinking water and toothpaste, public exposure levels are too high. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), EPA is required to ensure that pesticides it has registered for use cannot combine with non-food sources of the same substance to result in unsafe levels of exposure for that chemical.” After much lobbying and conference amendments, the 2014 Farm Bill was signed — including language instructing the EPA administrator to exclude non-pesticidal (all water fluoridation) sources of fluoride when determining aggregate risk exposure to sulfuryl fluoride.

The use of this compound continues. There are multiple avenues to avoidance of excess-fluoride risks, including: learning about local fluoridation practices; practicing and/or advocating for breastfeeding for the first six months (or more) of an infant’s life, especially in fluoridated communities; being mindful of exposures through dental practices; and choosing organic food whenever possible. Beyond opting for organic food options to avoid additional dietary exposure to sulfuryl fluoride, consumers can find information on alternative ways to deal with pest problems and avoid sulfuryl fluoride (as well as other pesticides) here. For options in dealing with specific pest problems, see Beyond Pesticides’ website pages on bedbugs, rodents, termites, and roaches.

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

Sources: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-fluoridation-lowers-iq-of-formula-fed-babies-300962294.html and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019326145?via%3Dihub

(Beyond Pesticides, December 12, 2019) A breakthrough study in biological pest management has found a species of wasp can, when combined with other non-toxic methods, readily replace toxic pesticide use in the management of the invasive spotted-wing drosophila (SWD). SWD is a fruit fly originally from southeast Asia that has caused significant crop losses in the U.S. over the last decade, estimated at over $700 million each year. The success of this integrated biological approach underlines the importance of public funding for non-chemical methods of pest management.

SWD looks like any other fruit fly, laying its eggs in fruit that subsequently hatches maggots, which feed on and ruin the fruit. It has been particularly virulent and damaging in the U.S. due to a lack of natural predators. Scientists at Oregon State University tested the viability of the parasitic wasp Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae to manage SWD because it is one of very few species found to kill SWD under field conditions. The parasitoid’s pest-management capacity was investigated by identifying the resources required to keep it alive, and how the provision of resources affected its host-killing potential

P. vindemmiae performed well as a SWD control agent due to its ability to life quite long under both limited and ample resources, with ample resources enhancing its ability to manage the pest. Providing constant water and honey resulted in wasp survival upwards of 70 days without any host, indicating an ability to rear and maintain populations outside of an infested site. Researchers saw no impact of resource limitation on P. vindemmiae egg hatching. Even wasps that were completely starved after birth were able to live over 10 days. This is significant as other studies of different SWD parasitoid species have found live spans that rarely reach one week.

A single wasp is able to kill up to 600 SWD throughout its lifespan. “Based on the survival and host-killing capacity of the wasp, we have concluded that it has tremendous biocontrol potential against SWD,” said Vaughn Walton, PhD, professor at OSU’s College of Agricultural Sciences in a press release.

The parasitic wasp has the potential to replace a conventional approach that prescribes pesticide dependency. “Spotted wing drosophila is very difficult to control,” said Dr. Walton. “It’s got a very, very high reproduction rate, many generations a year. Because of that, when using pesticides, they have to be applied constantly, sometimes two to three times a week.”

But even the wasp itself will not be effective unless other cultural best practices are followed, including the use of drip irrigation, proper sanitation, and weed cloth barriers that prevent SWD from infesting the soil after dropping to the ground on a pest-ridden piece of fruit.

“The wasp helps, but you must do the other things as well,” Dr. Walton said. “None can stand on its own. If you’re doing all of the cultural practices, you’re going to have a much lower problem… Even removing one [pesticide] application is a significant cost savings – $150 an acre. That’s a lot of savings if you can do all of these things together.”

This research took place under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Specialty Crop Research Initiative, a project aimed at regional management of SWD in California and the pacific northwest. The success of this approach underlines the importance of spending public monies on research into non-chemical means of pest management. Use of P. vindemmiae would not only save farmers money by saving crops; they’ll save on the cost otherwise spent on toxic pesticides, which could additionally cost farmers and farmworkers money in the form of future health care necessitated by pesticide-induced diseases.

Individuals wishing to eliminate the use of toxic pesticides in their own homes and yards can turn to Beyond Pesticides’ ManageSafe portal for non-toxic management approaches that work on a range of indoor and outdoor pests.

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

Source: Phys.org press release, PLOS One

(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2019) Last week, the European Union voted to ban the neurotoxic insecticides chlorpyrifos and chorpyrifos-methyl from use beginning February 1, 2020.

Yesterday, the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo vetoed a statutory chlorpyrifos ban and issued an immediate ban on aerial application, and proposed a regulatory phase-out that bans all uses by December 2020, except use on apple tree trunks by July 21. The proposal is subject to a public comment period. 

The European Union regulatory committee decided not to renew approvals following a European Food Safety Authority (ESFA) analysis, released in August, that there is no safe exposure level for chlorpyrifos. The decision to protect the public in EU differs from the trajectory of the United States, where individual states are having to step up to act in lieu of an independent, science-based federal regulatory system.

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

Angeliki Lyssimachou, science policy officer at Pesticide Action Network Europe, said the getting this ban passed was no small feat as, “It took an overwhelming amount of evidence — showing that chlorpyrifos insecticides may cause brain toxicity in children — for the European Commission to propose a ban.”

European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Stella Kyriakides, tweeted a “welcome” to the news about the “two dangerous pesticides,” saying, “Protecting the health of #EU citizens is my top priority.”

The European Commission stated, “A short period of grace for final storage, disposal and use (maximum 3 months) may be granted by EU countries. After that, such plant protection products can no longer be placed on the market or used in the EU.” The commission is also drafting a proposal to, “lower the Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl in food and feed to the lowest level that can be measured by analytical laboratories.”

While the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined nearly 20 years ago that the chemical should not be used in residential areas, it maintained uses on food crops, where even low levels of residues on food can end up harming children’s health (See a U.S. timeline here).  Given the current administration and its EPA actions, states have been pursuing bans and other constraining actions: Hawai’i banned chlorpyrifos more than a year ago, and New York and California followed suit in spring 2019. 

This July, EPA rejected data that supported opposition to the use of chlorpyrifos as “not sufficiently valid, complete or reliable.” Environmental groups were quick to litigate but remain in the tangle of the U.S. legal system as the use of this toxic pesticide continues.

After sustained campaigning by environmental groups, Governor Cuomo took action, stating, “Chlorpyrifos is a pesticide that has the potential to cause serious health problems in people who ingest it. I am directing the state department of environmental conservation to ban the use of this toxic substance to help ensure New York families aren’t needlessly exposed to a dangerous chemical.”

Bloomberg Environment reports, “The governor’s action appears to adopt the legislation’s approach, but on a faster timeline and with opportunity for public comment on the terms.” Instead of taking on the chemical by “legislative decree,” Cuomo is utilizing an established state regulatory system with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

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

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

Sources: Bloomberg, Agri-Pulse, Bloomberg (re. NY)

(Beyond Pesticides, December 10, 2019) Thousands of fox, coyote, and other carnivores will continue to be poisoned to death by hydrogen cyanide after the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-approved the use of M-44 “cyanide bombs” earlier this month. Cyanide bombs are essentially small, poison-filled land mines baited with food and placed on rural land with the intent of killing predators that prey on grazing livestock.  “EPA is blatantly ignoring its fundamental duty to protect the public, our pets and native wildlife from the cruel, lethal impacts of cyanide bombs lurking on our public lands,” said Kelly Nokes, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC). “We will continue to hold our federal government accountable to the law, and will continue our fight for a ban on M-44s once and for all.”

After denying a petition to ban the products last year, the agency delayed a decision to reregister M-44s in response to over 20,000 public comments, 99.9% of which opposed renewal, according to an analysis by the Center for Biological Diversity and WELC. Despite overwhelming public opposition, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is renewing the products with only minor changes to the labels that govern their use.

The agency will now prohibit use within a 600 ft buffer around homes, unless written permission is given by a landowner. The prior buffer of 100 ft. around public trails and paths will now be increased to 300 ft. And the agency will now require two, rather than one, warning signs where the products are located.

These restrictions are in the context of a product that temporarily blinded a child, killed three family dogs, and lead to the non-target death of a wolf all within the same year (2017). According to advocates, EPA is following the same otiose approach it has followed with countless other highly hazardous pest-control materials, including bug bombs and bee-toxic pesticides; when confronted with major problems, the agency decides to make minor label changes.  

“Tightening up use restrictions is turning a blind eye to the reality of M-44s,” said Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense. “In my 25 years working with M-44 victims I’ve learned that Wildlife Services’ agents frequently do not follow the use restrictions. And warning signs will not prevent more dogs, wild animals and potentially children from being killed. They cannot read them. M-44s are a safety menace and must be banned.”

Any animal that triggers a cyanide bomb is coated with sodium cyanide. After the material makes contact with saliva, it turns in to hydrogen cyanide gas, which quickly, but painfully, kills its victim.

As far back as 2007, Beyond Pesticides joined with conservation and wildlife organizations to oppose the indiscriminate poisoning of predators by M-44s and another highly hazardous wildlife killer known as compound 1080, containing the chemical sodium fluoroacetate.  According to Wildlife Services, M-44s killed 13,232 animals in 2017; most were coyotes and foxes, but more than 200 were nontarget animals (a wolf, pet dogs, opossums, raccoons, ravens, and skunks). According to the Sacramento Bee, 18 Wildlife Services employees (and several other people) were exposed to cyanide by M-44s from 1987 through 2012, and during the 2000–2012 period, the devices killed more than 1,100 dogs. National Geographic further reports that of 76,963 coyotes killed in 2016 for livestock protection, 12,511 were felled with M-44s, and that Wildlife Services spends more than $120 million a year killing animals deemed “nuisances” to humans.

Killing predators to protect livestock doesn’t work, for many reasons. There is no way to be sure the predator targeted is one that has killed livestock. And baiting can have the unintended effect of attracting additional predators to an area.  

Predator poisons targeting species like coyotes are also highly unlikely to be effective in either the long- or short-term. Indiscriminate deaths disrupt coyote population ecology; killing individual pack members can break up a coyote pack, leading to females increasing their breeding with other males, and potentially drawing more animals into a region. Not only are non-lethal methods of deterrence the only truly effective means of predator management, predators are critically important to healthy ecosystem functioning, and their absence in a region can cause unanticipated and cascading harm to a landscape.

There is a bi-partisan measure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 2019, introduced by Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Rep Matt Gaetz (R-FL), that would eliminate the use cyanide bombs and compound 1080. Contact your Congressmember today to urge support for the passage of that Act. For more information on the dangers pesticides pose to predators and other wild animals, see Beyond Pesticides’ Wildlife program page.

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

Source: EPA press release, Center for Biological Diversity press release

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2019) Although the influence of regulated corporations has historically silenced science that threatens profits – as shown by industry reaction to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring – attacks on science in federal agencies have increased in the Trump administration. EPA has dismissed findings of scientists concerning chlorpyrifos, atrazine, and synthetic pyrethroids. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has discontinued collecting data on honeybees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refused to designate critical habitat for the endangered rusty patched bumblebee.

Tell your Congressional Representative to cosponsor H.R. 1709, the Scientific Integrity Act, and thank those who already have cosponsored.

H.R. 1709, the Scientific Integrity Act, was introduced by Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, in an effort to restore scientific integrity to government agency decision-making. The bill begins with the premise that “science and the scientific process should inform and guide public policy decisions on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, and protection of national security.” It prohibits scientific misconduct, suppression of scientific findings, intimidation of researchers, and creation of barriers to communicating scientific or technical findings. It limits the actions an agency may take in the process of approving dissemination of scientific results and gives individual researchers the right to review public statements by agencies for accuracy.

Without reliance on science, agency policies are arbitrary and capricious – the standard of irresponsibility in government. There are currently 230 cosponsors of the Scientific Integrity Act. You will be automatically directed to the appropriate page thank those cosponsors or request others to cosponsor the bill.

Thank you Letter to Cosponsors

Although the influence of regulated corporations has historically silenced science that threatens profits – as shown by industry reaction to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring – attacks on science in federal agencies have increased in the Trump administration. EPA has dismissed findings of scientists concerning chlorpyrifos, atrazine, and synthetic pyrethroids. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has discontinued collecting data on honeybees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refused to designate critical habitat for the endangered rusty patched bumblebee.

That is why I am writing to thank you for cosponsoring H.R. 1709, the Scientific Integrity Act, to restore scientific integrity to government agency decision-making. The bill prohibits scientific misconduct, suppression of scientific findings, intimidation of researchers, and creation of barriers to communicating scientific or technical findings. It limits the actions an agency may take in the process of approving dissemination of scientific results and gives individual researchers the right to review public statements by agencies for accuracy.

Without reliance on science, agency policies are arbitrary and capricious – the standard of irresponsibility in government.

Thank you for cosponsoring H.R. 1709.

Sincerely,

Letter to Representatives who have not yet cosponsored H.R. 1709:

Although the influence of regulated corporations has historically silenced science that threatens profits – as shown by industry reaction to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, attacks on science in federal agencies have increased in the Trump administration. For example, EPA has dismissed findings of scientists concerning chlorpyrifos, atrazine, and synthetic pyrethroids. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has discontinued collecting data on honeybees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refused to designate critical habitat for the endangered rusty patched bumblebee.

H.R. 1709, the Scientific Integrity Act, was introduced by Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, in an effort to restore scientific integrity to government agency decision-making. The bill begins with the premise that “science and the scientific process should inform and guide public policy decisions on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, and protection of national security.” It prohibits scientific misconduct, suppression of scientific findings, intimidation of researchers, and creation of barriers to communicating scientific or technical findings. It limits the actions an agency may take in the process of approving dissemination of scientific results and gives individual researchers the right to review public statements by agencies for accuracy.

Without reliance on science, agency policies cannot fail to be arbitrary and capricious – the standard of irresponsibility in government. There are currently 230 cosponsors of the Scientific Integrity Act. I ask that you join them.

Please cosponsor H.R. 1709.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2019) A current ban of two pesticides — chlorpyrifos and its structurally close cousin chlorpyrifos-methyl — in nine European Union (EU) states is facing last-ditch efforts by pesticide producers to extend current EU approval, which is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2020. These compounds are notorious for their devastating impacts on neurodevelopment in fetuses and children. Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly advocated for a ban of these compounds because of the grave risks they pose.

In 2006, chlorpyrifos was approved by the EU for use for 10 years — even in the context of demonstrated evidence that chlorpyrifos causes significant developmental delays. The EU Observer notes that the EU never evaluated these impacts of exposure to chlorpyrifos compounds. More recent research has shown other neurodevelopmental deficits and anomalies: reduced IQ and working memory, attention deficit disorders, and autism spectrum disorders, among them.

In July 2019, the European Commission (EC) requested that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) publish an interim statement on the effects of chlorpyrifos on human health. In early August 2019, EFSA and experts from EU member states moved the EU closer to a ban on chlorpyrifos when they announced their conclusion that chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl do not meet criteria for renewed approval. Included in their evaluation were evidence of both the neurotoxicity and potential genotoxicity of the compounds.

Manufacturers objected, and ironically, farmers — who are at increased risk of acute exposure effects of the chemicals, which can cause respiratory paralysis and even death — joined in the grievance, invoking concern that the withdrawal of chlorpyrifos could “significantly compromise European fruit and vegetable production.” The EU Observer wryly wrote, “The letter thus seemed to ignore that the ban of chlorpyrifos in nine countries had not led to a collapse of fruit and vegetable production.”

Manufacturers, including Corteva (which was the agricultural unit of DowDuPont prior to its spin-off as a separate, public company) and Ascenza, are pressuring the EU to extend approval beyond the 2020 date.

Corteva insists that neither pesticide is genotoxic. Thomas Lyall, the regulatory and stewardship leader for Corteva, actually said that there is “no evidence of developmental neurotoxicity in animals or humans from either chlorpyrifos or chlorpyrifos-methyl.”

A primary tactic of industry pushback appears to be to delegitimize the role and claims of nonprofit health and environment advocates. In January 2019, representatives from Corteva said, “regulation should not be done on the basis of public pressure triggered by activists which do not trust the legal regulatory system but on sound evidence.” In October, industry lobbying firm EPPA charged that the EU Commission had overreacted and was being “guided by strong NGO [non-governmental organization] and media pressure.” Such arguments ignore the many studies that have demonstrated the dangers of exposure to these chlorpyrifos compounds; see, for example, the studies in the Endnotes of this Pesticides and You journal article, “Widely Used Pesticide in Food Production Damages Children’s Brains.”

EU member state representatives were scheduled to meet in the first week of December, and a majority was expected to be in favor of a chlorpyrifos ban. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Slovenia, and Sweden all indicated interest in preventing the renewal of chlorpyrifos-methyl (with Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Poland against cancellation). It is not known whether, should the compounds be banned by the EU, Corteva intends to bring suit against the EC to prevent foreclosure of the use of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl.

The U.S. has endured its own chlorpyrifos saga during the past few years. As Beyond Pesticides wrote in August 2019: “In 2015 the EPA proposed to revoke food residue tolerances of chlorpyrifos, which would effectively have banned use of the pesticide in agriculture; all residential uses had previously been withdrawn from the market in 2000. Then, early in 2017, with a new administration in place, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt reversed the agency’s own proposal to ban the pesticide — a decision that happened just weeks after Mr. Pruitt met with the head of Dow Chemical Company, maker of the compound. Mr. Pruitt then falsely claimed the science on chlorpyrifos was ‘unresolved’ and said EPA would study the issue — with no planned action — until 2022.”

In April 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9^th Circuit ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to justify why chlorpyrifos should remain in the U.S. market, given the overwhelming evidence of its toxicity to children, especially, and gave EPA 90 days to comply. Astonishingly, in July, EPA denied the petition, and instead of providing the court-mandated rationale for continued use, chose to attack the science as “not . . . valid, complete, and reliable.” Absent any meaningful federal action on these toxic pesticides, Hawaii, California, and New York have all moved to ban chlorpyrifos; Connecticut, Oregon, and Maryland are all in various phases of considering and enacting limits or bans. As with so many environmental concerns during the Trump administration, states are where any meaningful action currently happens.

As Beyond Pesticides covered in May 2019, a group of leading toxics experts has called for a ban on organophosphate pesticides, which category includes chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl. These scientists concluded that: (1) widespread use of organophosphate (OP) pesticides to control insects has resulted in ubiquitous human exposures; (2) acute exposures to OPs are responsible for poisonings and deaths, particularly in developing countries; and (3) evidence demonstrates that prenatal exposures, even at low levels, put children at risk for cognitive and behavioral deficits, and for neurodevelopmental disorders.

A transition to organic food production, and to nontoxic land and pest management systems, is the solution to this and most risks of pesticide use. A robustly growing sector, organics is a real, productive, and viable alternative to the use of toxic pesticides. States should ban chlorpyrifos compounds at the very least, but organophosphates generally, should undertake organic management on state-owned lands, and should support producers in transitioning away from chemical agriculture and to organic, regenerative, and sustainable practices.

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

Source: https://euobserver.com/environment/146772?mc_cid=2e74ccd1fc&mc_eid=ee19ad4c9b

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2019) Five years after three neonicotinoids were banned for use on bee-attractive crops in the EU, researchers found that these bee-toxic chemicals are contaminating soils and poisoning the nectar of oilseed rape (canola). The results of this research point to an immediate need to end the use of persistent environmental contaminants and promote organic practices.

Researchers set out to determine whether the EU moratorium eliminated the risk for bees that forage on oilseed rape nectar. They tested for imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, and clothianidin residues in the nectar of winter-sown oilseed rape in from 291 oilseed rape fields in western France for five years following the EU moratorium (2014-2018).

Results show all three neonicotinoids were present at least once in the study’s time period. Imidacloprid was detected every year with “no clear declining trend,” though its prevalence fluctuated widely between years. Two samples from 2016 show residues that are five times the expected maximum concentration in nectar of a plant directly treated with imidacloprid. Residue levels in the nectar depend on soil type and increase with rainfall. The researchers put forth in their discussion that the imidacloprid contamination may likely be caused by runoff from neighboring, treated plants. Neonicotinoids are water-soluble (a necessary function in order to be a systemic pesticide) and therefore leach from their intended site throughout the environment.

Another aspect to the study includes an assessment of acute and chronic risk to foraging bees. Using a scheme adapted from the European Food Safety Authority’s first-tier risk assessment, researchers “simulated the risk of imidacloprid-induced mortality for individual honeybees, bumblebees, and solitary bees foraging on oilseed rape nectar over a period of 10 days” and found some disturbing results.

Risk peaks in 2014 and 2016 indicate that 50% of honey bees were likely to die from imidacloprid on 12% of the study plots. Risk for individual wild bees was even higher. The researchers admit that their analysis is a worst-case scenario, and likely bees do not solely forage on one crop. However, oilseed rape is a bee-attractive crop that flowers while bee colonies are growing and have high foraging demands. The study notes that wildflowers have similarly been found to contain neonicotinoid residues, representing a widespread problem where non-target bee fodder is contaminated with bee-toxic pesticides.

These data illustrate that the EU moratorium, while viewed as a a critically needed step, cannot in the short-term eliminate risk from persistent pesticides for foraging bees. Researchers conclude, “Despite the limitations of case-studies and risk simulations, our findings provide additional support to the recent extension of the moratorium to a permanent ban in all outdoor crops.” Beyond Pesticides contends that, further than a ban on these individual chemicals which can readily be replaced with other bee-toxic substitutes, organic agriculture must be presented as the alternative option.

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

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

Source: Science of the Total Environment

(Beyond Pesticides, December 4, 2019) Last week, Thailand’s government shifted course from banning three toxic pesticides to only restricting the use of glyphosate and delaying the enforcement of bans on paraquat and chlorpyrifos. After an initially strong stance, the government is now bending to pressure from the U.S. government and the chemical-intensive farming industry.

Glyphosate, paraquat, and chlorpyrifos had been on track to be upgraded to “type 4 toxic substances” starting December 1. All existing stocks of type 4 toxic substances are required to be destroyed, as the chemicals are not allowed to be produced, imported, or possessed in the country. The bans on paraquat and chlorpyrifos have now been deferred until June 1, 2020. Glyphosate will continue to be allowed in Thailand as long as products  meet maximum residue limits.

In October, U.S. Department of Agriculture Ted McKinney wrote a letter to Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-Ocha describing the ‘severe impacts’ that a glyphosate ban would have on U.S. exports of commodities like soybeans and wheat. CropLife Asia, a trade group that represents pesticide industry giants, also asked PM Prayuth to delay the ban due to its potential impact on agriculture. Farmers protested that there were not proper alternatives for the banned pesticides.

16% of Thailand’s population is employed in the agricultural sector. The country is a substantial exporter of rice, rubber, and sugar. Rice farmer Siri Saknataiguan told NPR, “There’s no question that the chemicals we’ll have to use instead will be more expensive. So the government has to help us. Otherwise, farmers won’t be able to make a living.” On November 25, around 2,000 demonstrators marched to Thailand’s Government House demanding a delay on the bans.

Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, part of the Bhum Jai Tahi party that pushed for the ban, argued, “We have to listen to all parties and assess what we can do to create less dispute. But I’m responsible for the Ministry of Health, and there can be no compromise on any policy that’s dangerous for health.”

Thailand’s National Hazardous Substances Committee claimed that it would not be able to manage the costly affair of destroying the approximate 23,000 tons of the existing chemicals within the country. The committee stated, “After the discussion on the management of the hazardous chemicals. . .we have found that we are unable to manage the situation if the ban takes place on Dec. 1.”

Witoon Lianchamroon, director of the advocacy group BioThai, told Reuters, “This is most disappointing. They are helping companies that import these chemicals, particular the importers of glyphosate.”

The Industry Minister stated that officials are planning to begin a four-month study on the impact of bans on paraquat and chlorpyrifos as well as substitute chemicals. Health Minister Charnvirakul told reporters that he was disappointed but would respect the decision of the panel.

While this story has indeed taken a disappointing turn, the farmer backlash offers a case study for where single-chemical bans – though they can be an important in a short-term goal – can go wrong. The focus in Thailand is on the replacement of the banned toxic chemicals with substitutes instead of holistic, organic practices that are safe for people and the environment. 

Organic farms are profitable and resilient to the threats of a changing climate: healthy soil and soil cover help prevent nutrient and water loss, making them better prepared to withstand either floods or droughts. Beyond Pesticides recommends asking for organic because a broken, toxic system requires structural change, not a chemical substitute. Look into resources on organic for more.

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

Sources: Reuters, Bloomberg, NPR

(Beyond Pesticides, December 3, 2019) Common yard care practices are driven by income, age, geography, and peer-pressure, according to research funded by the National Science Foundation and published in the journal PLOS ONE. Lawns cover 63,000 sq ft in the United States, four times as much land as corn, making them the largest crop in the country. So while decisions over whether to irrigate, fertilize, or spray pesticides are made at the household level, even minor changes in practices could have major impacts on the environment.

“The apparent widespread nature of industrial lawncare, and the well-known associated negative environmental effects at the local-scale suggest a need to better understand the drivers, outcomes, and geographic variation in yard care practices, across the U.S.,” the study reads.

Researchers surveyed over 7,000 households in six major U.S. metropolitan areas, including Boston, Baltimore, Miami, Minneapolis-St Paul, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. Participants responded with their age, income level, the number of neighbors they know by name, and whether they used pesticides, fertilizers, or irrigated their yard within the last year.  Overall, the survey found that 80% of people irrigate their yard, 64% fertilize, and 53% apply pesticides.

Unsurprisingly, individuals living in water-starved areas like Phoenix and Los Angeles are more likely to have irrigated their yards than those living in cooler, wetter climates. Irrigation also increases 8% when homeowners know their neighbors by name. Individuals who know their neighbors are also 9% more likely to fertilize their lawns. And age is also associated with a similar increase in the likelihood of fertilizer use.

The most significant association is found between income level and land management practices. Higher income individuals are 23% more likely to irrigate their property, 26% more likely to fertilize, and 16% more likely to apply pesticides.

“It’s eye-opening that most people felt they needed to water their lawns and apply pesticides,” says Doug Levey, PhD, a program director in NSF’s Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research through its Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research site. “If neighbors expect this of each other, more and more lawns will be treated in these ways. The ecological and economic costs would also increase.”

Pesticide use on home lawns is associated with a range of diseases and health impacts. As Beyond Pesticides has documented, of the 30 most commonly used lawn pesticides, 16 are linked to cancer, 17 are endocrine disruptors, 21 are reproductive toxicants, 12 are linked to birth defects, 14 are neurotoxic, 25 cause kidney liver effects, and 26 are irritants. Lawn pesticides also harm pets, contaminate water, kill off wildlife, and disrupt proper ecosystem functioning.

Synthetic fertilizers can present similar health concerns, with nitrate pollution linked to birth defects, cancers, and thyroid problems. Their use damages soil microorganisms, impeding their ability to sequester carbon. They’ve been known to run-off or leach through groundwater into rivers, lakes and streams, resulting in eutrophication and oftentimes massive dead zones. A major drawback with the current study is that the authors did not differentiate whether the fertilizers used were organic or synthetic. By working alongside natural processes and feeding microorganisms in the soil, organic fertilizers pose significantly less risk than their synthetic counterparts.

The study provides some important insights into how the country can move in a better direction in the management of our own lawns and landscapes. The general finding that many are “keeping up with the Joneses” indicates that higher income households and those who know their neighbors are more likely to employ potentially hazardous and resource-intensive practices. In that sense, those in a community who make the switch toward less-intensive organic land care can set an example that their neighbors are likely to follow.

States and communities are already working to incentivize safer practices on home lawns and landscapes, with some encouraging folks to ditch their lawn all together. Minnesota recently established a program to pay homeowners to turn their lawns into bee-friendly habitat, appropriately addressing the issue raised in the study that cost may be an impediment to home landscape management. More and more local communities are passing policies that protect pollinators, and stop toxic pesticide use on home yards. And some, like South Portland, ME, are considering expanding pesticide restrictions to include synthetic fertilizers.

For more information on safer lawn care practices, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Lawn Care 101 and Read Your Weeds fact sheets. Before resorting to a toxic pesticide, check out the ManageSafe webpage to see if you can manage your weed or pest problem without chemicals. Most importantly, if you’re limiting hazardous lawn care practices on your yard, make sure to tell your neighbors about your success, and encourage them to follow suit.

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

Source: National Science Foundation, PLOS ONE

(Beyond Pesticides, December 2, 2019) December 2 marks the 35^th anniversary of the world’s worst industrial chemical accident. During the night of December 2, 1984, the Union Carbide pesticide manufacturing plant released the highly toxic gas methyl isocyanate (MIC) into the air of Bhopal, India. The reports were horrifying – an estimated 25,000 people died from direct effects of the exposure, and hundreds of thousands suffer from permanent disabilities or chronic problems. The health effects were not limited to those exposed that night. Generations of children suffer from birth defects as a result of the accident, including what one doctor described as ‘monstrous births.’ Many people are still exposed to the contaminated site and chemicals released from it.

>> Tell Congress to eliminate future Bhopal disasters by passing an Organic Green New Deal.

The Union Carbide plant in Bhopal manufactured carbamate insecticides carbaryl (Sevin®), aldicarb (Temik®), and a formulation of carbaryl and gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane (g-HCH) (Sevidol®). In August 1985, a Union Carbide plant in Institute, West Virginia that makes MIC released a toxic cloud that resulted in the hospitalization of at least 100 residents. Chemical accidents continue: in 2008, two workers were fatally injured when a waste tank containing the pesticide methomyl violently exploded, damaging a process unit at the Bayer CropScience chemical plant in Institute, West Virginia; in 2010, there was a release of highly toxic phosgene, resulting in the death of a worker at the DuPont facility in Belle, West Virginia; in 2014, a leak originating from a storage tank at Freedom Industries contaminated the local water supply leaving hundreds of thousands of West Virginia residents without clean drinking water. This is just a sample.

In the U.S., the Bhopal tragedy spurred the passage of the Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. EPCRA created a system of emergency planning, chemical release reporting, reporting requirements for hazardous materials storage, and a toxic chemical release inventory. While EPCRA provides an essential infrastructure for a society that uses and depends on toxic chemicals, it cannot prevent another Bhopal. To do that, society need to move away from a dependence on toxic chemicals.

Organic agriculture eliminates the use of toxic chemicals in food production. A transition of the conventional chemical-intensive agricultural system to organic is the most important step towards preventing chemical accidents like the one in Bhopal, according to advocates. It will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect biodiversity, and increase resilience in the face of climate change.

A future that prevents harm

The Bhopal tragedy may have been the worst, but it is not the only such accident. These can only be prevented by turning away from the current reliance on toxic chemicals, and Beyond Pesticides is advocating an Organic Green New Deal to promote that transition. And, the following actions are needed to eliminate dependence on toxic chemicals, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect biodiversity, and increase resilience in the face of climate change.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 27, 2019) This Thanksgiving, Beyond Pesticides is drawing attention to research which underscores the current value of Indigenous knowledge and rights in the global fight for environmental justice. We are also highlighting some inspiring Indigenous activists representing frontline communities.

First, we offer our network a Thanksgiving message from the Native American Rights Fund, which published a few year’s back a Thanksgiving message and a poem  from their Mohawk relatives on the natural world (see below): “Native Americans are grateful for all that nature provides, and many of us celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday in our own ways. Moreover, we give thanks every day as we greet the morning star in the eastern sky giving thanks to the Creator, our families, our ancestors, and our survival.” We, at Beyond Pesticides, wish our network a Happy Thanksgiving celebration of life and a path to a healthy future.

A study published in the journal Environmental Science and Policy earlier this year found that vertebrate biodiversity on indigenous-managed lands in Australia, Brazil, and Canada is equal to or higher than protected areas. As the planet faces cascading disasters, such as mass extinction and the climate crisis, the authors state, “Partnerships with Indigenous communities that seek to maintain or enhance Indigenous land tenure practices on Indigenous-managed lands may therefore have some potential to ameliorate national and global shortfalls in land protection for biodiversity conservation using a mix of conventional protected areas and Indigenous-managed lands.”

Researchers utilized open source species-range maps of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to estimate total richness of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles. Using GIS mapping and analysis, they compared species and endangered-species richness among three land types (Indigenous-managed, protected areas with no Indigenous co-management, and non-protected areas of equivalent area) across Australia, Brazil, and Canada. Indigenous-managed and protected areas had similarly high levels of biodiversity, while non-protected areas fell far behind. The authors note that many species are dependent on Indigenous lands, highlighting two threatened species in Australia – the Scanty frog (Cophixalus exguus) and the Northern hopping-mouse (Notomys aquilo) – that have a very small geographic range, of which > 97% is on Indigenous land.

Co-author Nick Reo, a member of the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians tribe of Ontario and associate professor at Dartmouth College, said, “Indigenous-managed lands represent an important repository of biodiversity in three of the largest countries on Earth, and Indigenous peoples currently manage or have tenure to roughly one-quarter of the planet’s land area.”

In a letter responding to the August International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s “Climate Change and Land” special report that also recognized the relationship between indigenous knowledge and healthy lands, a coalition of Indigenous Peoples responded, “We have cared for our lands and forests—and the biodiversity they contain—for generations. With the right support we can continue to do so for generations to come.”

INDIGENOUS ACTIVISTS

Raymond Owl, an elder from Sagamok First Nation in Canada is suing the government for aerial spraying of glyphosate. “It’s still our land. We never sold it. We just gave you a right to live here. That’s all you got. But you don’t have authority what you do to our land,” Owl told CBC, “First Nations doesn’t want any chemical at all. If it kills one little bug, one blade of grass, that’s too much.”

Xiutezcaht Martinez is a 19-year-old environmental advocate of Aztec descent who got his start in political organizing banning pesticide use on public areas in Boulder, CO. He explained in an interview, “We addressed City Council and talked to them about local pesticides in our community and health impacts and asked them to do something about it. And, like, we changed the law — we got them to ban the use of pesticides in public parks. We worked in coalition with other organizations and stuff, but like you could tell that the voice of young people had a really significant impact. Then we were like, damn, this works — putting power and energy into uplifting the voice of young people has a significant impact in the world, and it can influence adults and leaders.”

Martinez is one of 21 youth plaintiffs in the Juliana v. the United States claiming that the US violated the rights of young people by promoting activities related to the climate crisis. He works with the group Earth Guardians to inspire change and has been involved in the Global Youth Climate Strikes. The next global climate strikes are Friday, November 29^th and December 6^th.

Sônia Guajajara represents over 300 Brazilian Indigenous groups through Articulação dos Povos Indígenas do Brasil (APBI). She is facing a significant adversary in far-right President Jair Bolsonaro who has approved a record number of new toxic pesticides and turned a blind eye to the rapid deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. “Since Jair Bolsonaro took office, we have lived with constant attacks against our people, Mother Earth and food sovereignty,” says Ms, Guajajara, “Every week new pesticides are registered. Besides contaminating our soil, our groundwater and negatively impacting our collective health, it is preposterous that the Brazilian Government allows foreign companies to sell products which contain chemicals that are banned in their domestic markets.”

Beyond Pesticides gives thanks to these courageous advocates.

The Native American Rights Fund issued a Thanksgiving Address: Greetings to the Natural World several years back that we reprint here.

Thanksgiving Address
Greetings to the Natural World 

The People
Today we have gathered and we see that the cycles of life continue. We have been given the duty to live in balance and harmony with each other and all living things. So now, we bring our minds together as one as we give greetings and thanks to each other as people.

Now our minds are one.

The Earth Mother
We are all thankful to our Mother, the Earth, for she gives us all that we need for life. She supports our feet as we walk about upon her. It gives us joy that she continues to care for us as she has from the beginning of time. To our mother, we send greetings and thanks.

Now our minds are one.

The Waters
We give thanks to all the waters of the world for quenching our thirst and providing us with strength. Water is life. We know its power in many forms-waterfalls and rain, mists and streams, rivers and oceans. With one mind, we send greetings and thanks to the spirit of Water.

Now our minds are one.

The Fish
We turn our minds to the all the Fish life in the water. They were instructed to cleanse and purify the water. They also give themselves to us as food. We are grateful that we can still find pure water. So, we turn now to the Fish and send our greetings and thanks. Now our minds are one.

The Plants
Now we turn toward the vast fields of Plant life. As far as the eye can see, the Plants grow, working many wonders. They sustain many life forms. With our minds gathered together, we give thanks and look forward to seeing Plant life for many generations to come.

Now our minds are one.

The Food Plants
With one mind, we turn to honor and thank all the Food Plants we harvest from the garden. Since the beginning of time, the grains, vegetables, beans and berries have helped the people survive. Many other living things draw strength from them too. We gather all the Plant Foods together as one and send them a greeting of thanks.

Now our minds are one.

The Medicine Herbs
Now we turn to all the Medicine herbs of the world. From the beginning they were instructed to take away sickness. They are always waiting and ready to heal us. We are happy there are still among us those special few who remember how to use these plants for healing. With one mind, we send greetings and thanks to the Medicines and to the keepers of the Medicines.

Now our minds are one.

The Animals
We gather our minds together to send greetings and thanks to all the Animal life in the world. They have many things to teach us as people. We are honored by them when they give up their lives so we may use their bodies as food for our people. We see them near our homes and in the deep forests. We are glad they are still here and we hope that it will always be so.

Now our minds are one.

The Trees
We now turn our thoughts to the Trees. The Earth has many families of Trees who have their own instructions and uses. Some provide us with shelter and shade, others with fruit, beauty and other useful things. Many people of the world use a Tree as a symbol of peace and strength. With one mind, we greet and thank the Tree life.

Now our minds are one.

The Birds
We put our minds together as one and thank all the Birds who move and fly about over our heads. The Creator gave them beautiful songs. Each day they remind us to enjoy and appreciate life. The Eagle was chosen to be their leader. To all the Birds-from the smallest to the largest-we send our joyful greetings and thanks.

Now our minds are one.

The Four Winds
We are all thankful to the powers we know as the Four Winds. We hear their voices in the moving air as they refresh us and purify the air we breathe. They help us to bring the change of seasons. From the four directions they come, bringing us messages and giving us strength. With one mind, we send our greetings and thanks to the Four Winds.

Now our minds are one.

The Thunderers
Now we turn to the west where our grandfathers, the Thunder Beings, live. With lightning and thundering voices, they bring with them the water that renews life. We are thankful that they keep those evil things made by Okwiseres underground. We bring our minds together as one to send greetings and thanks to our Grandfathers, the Thunderers.

Now our minds are one.

The Sun
We now send greetings and thanks to our eldest Brother, the Sun. Each day without fail he travels the sky from east to west, bringing the light of a new day. He is the source of all the fires of life. With one mind, we send greetings and thanks to our Brother, the Sun.

Now our minds are one.

Grandmother Moon
We put our minds together to give thanks to our oldest Grandmother, the Moon, who lights the night-time sky. She is the leader of woman all over the world, and she governs the movement of the ocean tides. By her changing face we measure time, and it is the Moon who watches over the arrival of children here on Earth. With one mind, we send greetings and thanks to our Grandmother, the Moon.

Now our minds are one.

The Stars
We give thanks to the Stars who are spread across the sky like jewelry. We see them in the night, helping the Moon to light the darkness and bringing dew to the gardens and growing things. When we travel at night, they guide us home. With our minds gathered together as one, we send greetings and thanks to the Stars.

Now our minds are one.

The Enlightened Teachers
We gather our minds to greet and thank the enlightened Teachers who have come to help throughout the ages. When we forget how to live in harmony, they remind us of the way we were instructed to live as people. With one mind, we send greetings and thanks to these caring teachers.

Now our minds are one.

The Creator
Now we turn our thoughts to the creator, or Great Spirit, and send greetings and thanks for all the gifts of Creation. Everything we need to live a good life is here on this Mother Earth. For all the love that is still around us, we gather our minds together as one and send our choicest words of greetings and thanks to the Creator.

Now our minds are one.

Closing Words
We have now arrived at the place where we end our words. Of all the things we have named, it was not our intention to leave anything out. If something was forgotten, we leave it to each individual to send such greetings and thanks in their own way.

Now our minds are one.

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

Sources: Environmental Science and Policy. EuroNews. Native American Rights Fund

(Beyond Pesticides, November 26, 2019) Bayer’s Monsanto endangered public health and the environment by knowingly storing and applying the highly hazardous and banned insecticide methyl parathion in Maui, Hawaii, according to a release from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Central District of California. “We take this very seriously and accept full responsibility for our actions,” the company wrote on a blog post published to its website. To health and justice advocates, those words ring hollow, as widespread reports indicate that Bayer Monsanto worked behind the scenes, using high-powered connections to avoid true responsibility for its atrocious actions in the Hawaiian Islands.

According to reports from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), the California U.S. Attorney’s office was prepared to file full felony charges against the company for its violation of federal pesticide and hazardous waste disposal laws. Bayer Monsanto, however, had hired attorney Alice S. Fisher, a former senior official in the Department of Justice, now in private practice with the law firm Latham & Watkins. At the last minute, Ms. Fisher appealed to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. This led to a directive, “to resolve the Monsanto criminal case with misdemeanors only,” according to documents obtained by POGO. As POGO indicates, circumventing the long-held tradition of autonomy within U.S. attorney offices is intended to occur only “in the most unusual of circumstances.”

Methyl parathion may cause death, loss of consciousness, dizziness, confusion, headaches, difficult breathing, chest tightness, wheezing, vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, tremors, blurred vision, and sweating, according to federal health agencies. It has been found to jeopardize the survival of dozens of endangered species. The pesticide, an organophosphate insecticide, was canceled in 2012, and no products containing the chemical were permitted for use beginning January 1, 2014.

So when methyl parathion was sprayed on Maui cornfields on July 15, 2014, Bayer Monsanto knew full well that this use was prohibited. But the company went even further. The last label for the pesticide mandated a 31 day waiting period before reentering a sprayed field. Knowing all of this information, Bayer Monsanto told its employees to go to work in the sprayed fields after just one week.

Banned pesticides turn into hazardous waste. And Bayer Monsanto stored over 270 lbs of methyl parathion between the Hawaiian Islands of Maui and Molokai. This amount made the company a “Large Quantity Generator” of hazardous waste, for which it did not seek out the proper permits. The company also transported the waste, but failed to identify it as such on a shipping manifest.

In order to avoid felony charges, Bayer Monsanto have agreed to pay a total of $10.2 million. To put that number in perspective, Bayer’s third-quarter earnings were $1.15 billion. Thus, the company’s payment for endangering public health and environmental safety stands at 0.009% of its recently reported profits.

As Beyond Pesticides has reported in the past, Bayer Monsanto and other agrichemical giants have set up shop in Hawaii and are wrecking the place. These companies, both directly and through umbrella groups like Croplife America, have fought tooth and nail against any measure put forward by local elected officials aiming to safeguard the public from their toxic products. Instead of mandatory pesticide use reporting requested by local officials, agrichemical companies said they would police themselves through a “Good Neighbor Program.”

“Safety and stewardship are our top priorities and as part of this effort,” said John Purcell of Monsanto Hawaii in 2015 to Civil Beat. “We have expanded our education and outreach efforts to ensure the public that we are using the most updated farm stewardship practices to care for the health of our neighbors, communities and our land.”

This statement was made one year after the company had illegally applied methyl parathion to Maui cornfields. Despite agrichemical companies’ empty gestures, advocates have continued to push for increased protections, last year scoring a long awaited victory requiring mandatory reporting of toxic pesticide use, banning another hazardous insecticide, chlorpyrifos, for use in the state.

However, advocates may now rightly ask what is stopping agrichemical companies from continuing to illegally spray chlorpyrifos. Pesticide enforcement during the Trump Administration has been negligible, and many long-term Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees are demoralized. When companies can run to political appointees in the federal government to avoid real consequences for their crimes, breaking the law simply becomes the cost of doing business.

If you’re fed up with revolving door in Washington DC that lets chemical companies write and enforce their own rules, get active in your local community. Only grassroots action will bring these companies to account. Case in point, the present lawsuit was initiated because local advocates drove around cornfields taking pictures of publicly facing pesticide use report logs. A log indicating methyl parathion use was posted online, allowing others to identify the banned chemical, leading to EPA’s criminal investigation. Work to emulate these advocates: gather with friends and family, reach out to your state and local lawmakers, and fight back against toxic chemical use in your community.

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

Source: Project on Government Oversight, DOJ press release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 25, 2019) Continuing its marathon of deregulation to benefit the chemical industry, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its proposal to increase the amount of the weed killer atrazine allowed in U.S. waterways by 50% during the chemical’s registration review—a stark reversal of previous proposals to significantly reduce atrazine levels in the environment. The atrazine proposal follows closely on the heels of a proposal to further weaken protections regarding 23 pyrethroid insecticides that have been repeatedly linked by peer-reviewed studies to neurological issues such as learning disabilities in children.

Ask Congress to request an investigation into whether EPA is ignoring its statutory duty and regulatory requirements to use science in its proposals.

EPA’s atrazine proposal comes after agrichemical giant Syngenta and the National Corn Growers Association requested that EPA dismiss independent research regarding the adverse impact of atrazine.

Atrazine, a broadleaf herbicide, is linked to endocrine disruption, neuropathy, and cancer. It disrupts the sexual development of frogs at levels far below the current allowed concentrations by EPA. Studies by Tyrone Hayes, PhD, University of California, Berkeley, and others have shown that concentrations as low as 0.1 ppb turn tadpoles into hermaphrodites. A 2009 study linked birth defects like gastroschisis and choanal atresia to the relative concentrations of atrazine and other pesticides in drinking water at the time of conception.

EPA’s proposal would increase the Concentration Equivalent Level of Concern (CELOC), a limit to protect aquatic organisms, by 50%. The new EPA position reverses its 2016 assessment based on a finding that levels of concern for chronic risk are exceeded by as much as 22, 198, and 62 times for birds, mammals, and fish, respectively.

An analysis of annual drinking water quality reports by the Environmental Working Group revealed that drinking water systems in the Midwest have seasonal exceedances of the allowable limit for atrazine. This explains why, instead of changing practices that pollute water systems, the chemical industry is eager to increase the allowable limit.

The agency’s pyrethroid proposal follows a request from an industry working group to reduce safeguards such as a permanent 66-foot vegetation buffer between fields and water bodies. EPA’s announcement proposes the reapproval of five out the 23 pyrethroids; proposals regarding the rest are already pending approval. EPA is accepting public comments on the proposal until January 13, 2020.

Pyrethroids are a common class of neurotoxic insecticides that have been repeatedly linked by peer-reviewed studies to neurological problems including learning disabilities in children. They are also extremely damaging to non-target invertebrates, according to EPA’s own analysis. Despite this, EPA recently undermined protections for children from these chemicals and now embraces industry proposals to further remove other safety barriers to human health and the environment. This August, EPA stripped away protections that limit children’s exposure to pyrethroids, lowering the safety factor (accepted exposure rates) from 3x to 1x that of adults – ignoring the fact that children are more susceptible to the impacts of toxic pesticides. In reviewing the epidemiological literature on the health impact of this chemical class, EPA looked at hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, but only incorporated two into its determination. The vast majority of studies reviewed by EPA were considered low quality by the agency’s subjective criteria, and effectively ignored.

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

Ask Congress to request an investigation into whether EPA is ignoring its statutory duty and regulatory requirements to use science in its proposals.

Letter to Congress

Please ask the Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate whether EPA—and specifically the Office of Pesticide Programs—is ignoring its statutory duty to use science in developing regulatory proposals. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act requires EPA to make pesticide registration decisions based on data supplied by the pesticide registrant. Based on such data, EPA must decide whether the pesticide poses unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. EPA is increasingly ignoring data in making proposals.

EPA has proposed to increase the amount of the weed killer atrazine allowed in U.S. waterways by 50% during the chemical’s registration review—reversing previous proposals to significantly reduce atrazine levels in the environment. This follows on the heels of a proposal to further weaken protections regarding 23 neurotoxic pyrethroid insecticides.

EPA’s atrazine proposal comes after industry groups requested that EPA dismiss independent research regarding the adverse impact of atrazine. Atrazine is linked to endocrine disruption, neuropathy, and cancer. It disrupts the sexual development of frogs at levels far below the current allowed concentrations by EPA. A 2009 study linked birth defects to the relative concentrations of atrazine and other pesticides in drinking water at the time of conception.

EPA’s proposal would increase the Concentration Equivalent Level of Concern (CELOC), a limit to protect aquatic organisms, by 50%, reversing its 2016 finding that levels of concern for chronic risk are exceeded by as much as 22, 198, and 62 times for birds, mammals, and fish, respectively.

An analysis of drinking water quality by the Environmental Working Group revealed that drinking water systems in the Midwest have seasonal exceedances of the allowable limit for atrazine; the chemical industry is eager to increase the allowable limit.

EPA’s pyrethroid proposal follows a request from an industry working group, the Pyrethroid Working Group, to reduce safeguards such as vegetation buffers between fields and water bodies. The announcement proposes the reapproval of 5 out of 23 pyrethroids; proposals regarding the rest are already pending approval.

Pyrethroids are linked by peer-reviewed studies to neurological problems including learning disabilities in children. They are destructive to non-target invertebrates, according to EPA’s own analysis.

EPA recently stripped away protections that limit children’s exposure to pyrethroids, lowering the safety factor from 3x to 1x that of adults–ignoring the fact that children are more susceptible to the impacts of toxic pesticides given that they take in more chemical relative to body weight, and have organs systems whose development is disrupted. In reviewing the epidemiological literature on the health impact of this chemical class, EPA looked at hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, but only incorporated two into its determination. The vast majority of studies reviewed by EPA were effectively ignored.

Instead, the agency prioritized methodology put forth by the Pyrethroid Working Group that estimated pyrethroids to be metabolized by children at the same rate as adults.

Please request an investigation into whether EPA is ignoring its statutory duty to use science to make decisions. Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 22, 2019) The potential exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union (EU) — aka “Brexit” — may portend greater pesticide use and exposures, according to a report from the Soil Association and the Pesticide Action Network UK. As covered by The Guardian, the report’s prediction points to uncertainty, despite reassurances from the United Kingdom (UK) government, about what regulatory standards will actually be in effect if and when Brexit occurs. The report also highlights the under-regulated issue identified in the report’s title — The Cocktail Effect — synergistic impacts of exposures to multiple synthetic pesticide compounds. Beyond cessation of pesticide use, Beyond Pesticides advocates for more rigorous review of synergistic effects of pesticides in the U.S.

In the UK, environmental and health advocates are voicing worries that the government’s reassurances that existing standards will be maintained after a Brexit is unconvincing. UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove insists that environmental standards would be enhanced following a UK exit from the EU. But advocates are concerned about potential loopholes that could allow farmers to use more pesticides on crops than the EU regulations permit, and could greenlight the import of foodstuffs with greater amounts of pesticide residue than current EU regulations allow.

Advocates also point to a report from the multi-partisan Environmental Audit Committee (of Members of Parliament, or MPs) that warns that a draft Environment Bill proposed for the post-Brexit period is alarmingly lacking in purported “protections.” That report says, “The environmental principles which guide and inform EU legislation and policy have been severely downgraded by the proposals in the bill. They are [also] subject to a number of exclusions and to the veto of the secretary of state.”

Further, advocates note the marked increase in pesticide use in the UK during the past 30 years or so. The Cocktail Effect provides a “status report” on pesticide use in the UK. It asserts that treated acreage (calculated as treated area multiplied by number of applications) has increased by nearly two-thirds in that period. This has been true especially of herbicide and fungicide application. In addition, frequency of use has risen: whereas 1990 saw 30% of grain crops and 21% of oilseed rape treated more than four times in a growing season, by 2016 those metrics rose to 55% of grains and 80% of rape; potatoes, e.g., are subject to three times the number of applications they underwent in 1990. Further, the report contends that the toxicity of currently deployed pesticides is higher than that of previous generations of compounds. It cites the examples of deltamethrin, used in many crops, as 360 times more toxic than the infamous DDT, and some neonicotinoids as 10,000 times more toxic than DDT.

The Cocktail Effect drills down on the issues related to exposures to multiple pesticide compounds — pesticide “cocktails.” It cites various metrics, including:
• more than 1/3 of all the fruit and vegetables tested by the UK government in 2017 and 2018 contained residues of more than one pesticide

• 87.5% of the pears tested in 2017 contained pesticide cocktails, with 4% containing residues of nine or more different chemicals
• a single sample of raspberries contained a known carcinogen, a probable carcinogen, 2 possible carcinogens, 2 endocrine disruptors, a developmental toxin, and a neurotoxin
• multiple residues were found in more than 3/4 of grapes tested in 2018
• in 2017 and 2018, 1/4 of all food items tested by the government contained multiple pesticide residues

The report notes that there is currently no governmental monitoring of exposures to such cocktails in the environment, despite a finding, in a soil study across 11 European countries, that the UK samples yielded the second-highest variety of residues. Approximately 67% of the UK samples had multiple residues, 25% had more than six, and 4% harbored traces of more than 10 pesticides. A cited study of UK waters (rivers, lakes, ponds, et al.) demonstrated, for example, that 66% of samples taken from seven riverine habitats contained residues of more than 10 pesticides.

As Beyond Pesticides has done many times, The Cocktail Effect identifies the growing evidence that exposure to multiple pesticide compounds can result in synergistic effects. Yet the UK government continues to assess the safety of one chemical at a time. This approach not only ignores the potential risks to human health from consumption of a single food (e.g., berries with multiple pesticide residues), but also, the risks related to the variety of foods consumed in the course of a day or week or month. In addition, it fails to recognize the increased use of multi-pesticide products, a “doubling down” approach adopted by industry in the face of failing efficacy of single-active-ingredient pesticides as organisms (weeds or animal pests) develop resistance to the compounds. Last, the report maintains that the UK regulatory system is poorly equipped to protect the natural environment from pesticide cocktails; it “ignores the cocktail effect, and fails to assess, monitor or limit the sum total of pesticide residues to which the environment and wildlife are exposed.”

Among the report’s key recommendations are:

• ensure that there is no weakening of UK pesticide regulations or standards if and when Brexit occurs
• undertake initiatives to support UK farmers in the transition to “whole farm agroecological systems” — such as organic and agroforestry
• establish quantitative targets for significant reduction of the overall use of pesticides in agriculture
• enact robust monitoring of pesticide impacts on environmental and human health
• undertake government-funded research into the effects of pesticide cocktails on the natural environment, wildlife, and human health
• ban public entities from applying pesticides near schools, playgrounds, and residential areas, and phase out all non-agricultural uses of pesticides

The Cocktail Effect summarizes: “Until the government takes action, farmers will struggle to get off the ‘pesticide treadmill,’ and UK citizens and our natural environment will continue to be exposed to potential harm. It is time to bring this damaging, decades-long experiment — in which we are blindly exposed to pesticide cocktails without any sense of the true consequences — to an end.”

“Green” advocacy groups in the UK are exhorting government ministers to use Brexit as an opportunity to “create the world’s most transparent regulatory system for pesticides . . . building public trust that decisions are the result of an unbiased process.” The head of campaigns and policy at Pesticide Action Network UK, Josie Cohen, said, “The UK will either need to create new institutions and bodies that can fill the governance gap after Brexit, or at least ensure that there are systems and staff in place to fulfil the functions previously carried out by EU bodies. The government urgently needs to invest in ensuring that, post-transition period, the UK system is fit for purpose. Otherwise, it risks a major weakening of UK pesticides standards, which would enable a greater variety of hazardous pesticides to be used in larger quantities.” The Guardian article notes advocates’ claim that trade discussions, negotiations, or deals with the U.S. would result in pressure on the UK to lower its pesticides standard to comport more closely with those in the U.S. — on whose inadequacy Beyond Pesticides has worked for decades.

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

Sources: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/21/brexit-may-expose-britons-to-more-pesticides-report and https://www.soilassociation.org/media/19535/the-pesticide-cocktail-effect.pdf

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2019) The City of South Miami last month became the first organic community in the state of Florida, passing a landmark ordinance limiting hazardous pesticide use on public property in favor of safer practices. An increasing number of communities in the state have begun to restrict the use of toxic pesticides, with North Miami passing an Integrated Pest Management plan last year, and Miami, Stuart, and Key West banning glyphosate.

South Miami, under the direction of Mayor Phillip Stoddard, PhD, professor of Biological Science at Florida International University, has a history of leading the state in the protection of public health and the environment. In 2014, the City Commission voted to declare all of South Miami a wildlife sanctuary, thereby restricting the use of highly toxic mosquito adulticides. The move protected populations of the state’s rare and endemic wildlife, such as the Florida bonneted bat, which begins to feed on mosquitoes in the spring at the same time spraying usually begins.

The City’s move toward organic landscaping was borne out of two years of successful trials by city workers and contractors. In 2017, its landscaping request for proposals (RFP) required that, in addition to practices intended to reduce pesticide use, only certified organic or minimum risk products could be used on city property.

As the memorandum for the ordinance reads, “Thus-far this initiative has been a qualified success, allowing the City to cut down on its waste-footprint significantly at relatively little expense, and providing a model for other local government to use as guidance.”

The ordinance defines allowable materials based on criteria similar to policies enacted in Montgomery County, MD, and Portland and South Portland, ME. Certified organic and minimum risk pesticidal products represent the least-toxic yet still effective tools that land managers may use within a safer, sustainable approach that considers natural systems and processes. Importantly, the ordinance indicates that these products are not to be used as a first resort by City staff and contractors. This approach emphasizes the importance of building healthy soils as a means of fostering plant resilience to pest and weed pressures. And when management needs do arise, this approach prioritizes cultural, mechanical, structural/habitat manipulation, and biological controls prior to the use of even the less toxic materials.

The success and codification of South Miami as an organic community sends an important message to other local governments in the U.S. South, Florida, and other humid and subtropical regions: landscapes can be adequately managed without the use of toxic pesticides, and, as South Miami’s experience indicates, at relatively little expense.

An increasing number of communities understand that rampant pesticide use is connected to insect, pollinator, and bird declines. That pesticides result in widespread water contamination,  disproportionately impact vulnerable populations like children and pregnant mothers, and are associated with cancer and other diseases that are all too common in today’s world.

Yet, cost is often an impediment. Not because costs increase significantly, as community after community that has transitioned to organic practices has found they do not. But because of fear-mongering by the pesticide industry, which tells community leaders looking to move toward safer practices that their expenses will skyrocket without access to cheap chemicals, that they will need to tear up their fields every year, that people will slip and fall on weeds, and that proponents of reform are simply too emotional to look at the financial impact.

Communities confronting these false industry-fueled arguments would be well-served by looking to experiences like South Miami’s, which is aiming to be a model for other local governments to move in this direction. If you’re interested in getting hazardous pesticides out of your City, town or state in favor of safer practices, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected] for scientific resources and information to make your case.

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

Source: South Miami City Commission

(Beyond Pesticides, November 20, 2019) Continuing its marathon of deregulation to benefit the chemical industry, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a memo announcing its proposal to increase the amount of the weed killer atrazine allowed in U.S. waterways by 50% during the chemical’s registration review—a stark reversal of previous proposals to significantly reduce atrazine levels in the environment. The proposal comes after agrichemical giant Syngenta and the National Corn Growers Association requested that EPA dismiss independent research regarding the adverse impact of atrazine. 

Atrazine, a broadleaf herbicide, is linked to endocrine disruption, neuropathy, and cancer. It disrupts the sexual development of frogs at levels far below the current allowed concentrations by EPA. Studies by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, and others have shown that concentrations as low as 0.1ppb interfere with mammary gland development in the breast of mammals. In 2009, a study linked birth defects like gastroschisis and choanal atresia to time of conception and the relative concentrations of atrazine and other pesticides in drinking water.

The current Concentration Equivalent Level of Concern (CELOC), a measure in place to protect aquatic organisms, for atrazine is a 60-day average concentration of 10 ppb. EPA’s proposal would increase the CELOC to 15 ppb. This new EPA position reverses a 2016 assessment with the following findings:

This refined assessment presents the ecological risks posed by the use of the herbicide atrazine. Based on the results from hundreds of toxicity studies on the effects of atrazine on plants and animals, over 20 years of surface water monitoring data, and higher tier aquatic exposure models, this risk assessment concludes that aquatic lant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is potential chronic risk to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates in these same locations. In the terrestrial environment, there are risk concerns for mammals, birds, reptiles, plants, and plant communities across the country for many of the atrazine uses. EPA levels of concern for chronic risk are exceeded by as much as 22, 198, and 62 times for birds, mammals, and fish, respectively. (EPA, Refined Ecological Risk Assessment for Atrazine, April 2016)

An analysis of annual drinking water quality reports released last winter revealed that drinking water systems in the Midwest have seasonal exceedances of the allowable limit for atrazine. This explains why, instead of changing practices that pollute water systems, the chemical industry is eager to increase the allowable limit.

“Disregarding independent science and instead paying heed to the guidance of corporations is corruption pure and simple,” said Barbara Dale, Marketing and Public Education Manager at Beyond Pesticides.

Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release, “To please Syngenta, the Trump EPA has rejected decades of independent research showing atrazine can’t be safely used at any level. The pro-industry zealots now running the EPA’s pesticide office are making a mockery of science and eliminating key safety measures, all for company profits.”

This administration’s EPA tests advocates’ endurance for outrage. As we face cascading environmental crises and public health threats, the agency is contributing to the problem rather than solving it. Next month, EPA will publish the Proposed Interim Decision and there will be a 60-day public comment period. Stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides Action of the Week for more.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, November 19, 2019) Legislatures in two New England states continue to deliberate environmental and public health measures aimed at protecting pollinators, safeguarding schoolchildren, and eliminating toxic pesticides. In Massachusetts, dozens of advocates packed a crowded hearing room for a slate of 16 bills before the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture. In New Hampshire, advocates were dismayed that, after a successful vote in subcommittee, the House Environment and Agriculture committee voted to weaken HB646, the Saving New Hampshire’s Pollinators Act, into an interim study measure.

The stalling of NH’s HB646 came as the pesticide industry, state agencies, and the state agricultural commissioner placed significant pressure on lawmakers, forwarding the idea that the science on the dangers neonicotinoids pose to pollinators is too complex for lawmakers to understand. Local advocate Fawn Gaudet of Save Our NH Pollinator Coalition responded with a passionate, science-based editorial in the Concord Monitor underlining the need for urgent action. However, arguments from pesticide industry proponents sowed the seeds of doubt, deferring to the current Environmental Protection Agency, despite its repeated failures to step up and protect pollinators.

An amendment weakening the legislation was introduced by State Representative Peter Bixby (D-Strafford), but not strongly supported by the member, according to those in attendance. Ultimately, committee Chair Representative Amanda Gourgue (D-Strafford), Representative Sherry Dutzy (D-Hillsborough), and Republican members of the committee voted to knock the bill down into an interim study measure.  Although advocates are disappointed that the Chair and the committee did not take immediate action to protect pollinators, they remain committed to continue educating lawmakers and the public about the hazards of bee-toxic pesticides.

“Scientific research continues to show the harm of neonics and other bee-toxic pesticides to our ecosystems, wildlife, and humans,” said Diana Carpinone of Non-toxic Dover NH. “These poisons make pollinators more vulnerable to other threats like mites and diseases. Establishment of more habitat and forage for pollinators is very important, but those plants must be free of toxic chemicals so as not to defeat the purpose. Restricting the use of bee-toxic pesticides is a vital step in protecting our New Hampshire pollinators.”

In Massachusetts, advocates made a strong push against industry influence after experiencing a situation similar to New Hampshire’s during previous legislative sessions. Packing the hearing room were a range of local, state, regional and national advocates pushing for bills that would restore local authority, protect schoolchildren from toxic exposure, and enact long-awaited pollinator protections. Many focused on the importance of fostering healthy soil as a means of best addressing pest problems and protecting the environment. “Herbicides kill the soil life,” said Julie Rawson, executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of the Northeast Organic Farming Association, which helped turn out advocates. “In order for plants to photosynthesize, we need soil microorganisms. … The pesticides kill all of those microorganisms and then the soil becomes dead, (leading to) problems with runoff (and) erosion.”

Testimony during the hearing lasted over four hours, with the number of local advocates overwhelming the handful of industry voices that attended in opposition. The slate of bills now rests in the hands of the committee. It is still accepting testimony as it deliberates, and Massachusetts’s residents can send a letter in support through this link. New Hampshire residents are encouraged to sign in support of a petition urging pollinator protection and follow up with a phone call to their individual elected officials.

If you’re interested in joining other advocates in protecting public health and the environment from toxic pesticides in your community or state, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected].

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

Source: Daily Hampshire Gazette, Concord Monitor

(Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes to the way farmworkers and bystanders are protected from toxic pesticide applications. Billed as “improvements” that will “reduce regulatory burdens for farmers,” the actions would instead significantly shrink Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs), buffer areas where individuals are not supposed to enter during a pesticide application, putting farmworkers and bystanders at risk.

Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators that EPA must protect farmworkers.

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

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

• Make AEZs applicable only to a farm owners’ property. Under the current rules, pesticide handlers are required to keep individuals out of an area where pesticides are applied both on and off site.
• Exempt on-farm family members from all aspects of the AEZ. EPA says this will allow farmers and their family “to decide whether to stay in their homes or…on their property during certain pesticide applications, rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining.” Feeling safe is not the same as being safe–one is based on emotions and the other on science.
• State that suspended pesticide applications may continue when an individual leaves an AEZ, and revise criteria determining when a pesticide application is subject to an AEZ. These changes backtrack safety requirements and would shrink the type of pesticide applications covered under this rule.

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

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

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

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

Tell your Congressional Representative and Senators that EPA must protect farmworkers.