Pesticide plant Crosby, TX flooded during Harvey and 50,000 pounds of chemical exploded and caught fire.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 21, 2018) Please comment by Thursday, August 23, midnight. The Trump Administration is proposing to weaken or repeal virtually all of the modest improvements to the Risk Management Plan (RMP) adopted in January 2017. While this proposal has broad implications for communities near pesticide manufacturing plants, according to Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, “EPA itself admits that the proposed rollback will disproportionately endanger communities of color and low-income communities. . .”

“EPA concludes that there is evidence that risks from RMP facilities fall on minority and low-income populations, to a significantly greater degree than those risks affect other populations. Therefore, EPA believes that this action may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 [Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations].” (EPA, Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, 83 FR 24881, 40 CFR Part 68 [EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725; FRL–9975–20– OLEM], RIN 2050–AG95.)

Tell the Trump Administration to reject the proposal to rollback disaster prevention plans for chemical plant accidents (see suggested comment below)

As has become more evident with the experience after many storms in recent memory —Katrina (2005), Ike (2008), Irene (2011), Isaac (2012), Sandy (2012), and Harvey, Irma, José, and Maria (all in 2017)— a significant threat to human health accompanies such events. Processing and storage facilities for petroleum products, pesticides, and other chemicals can be compromised by floodwaters, resulting in explosions and fires at damaged chemical facilities that can add airborne contaminant exposure, in addition to the release of toxicants into waters and soil.

If pesticides, petroleum derivatives, and other chemicals cannot be safeguarded at the point of production in the event of increasingly strong storms and other potential natural disasters, federal and state agencies must accommodate for these events in the risk calculations that inform the regulation of these compounds’ storage, use, and emergency mitigation. Current regulations are weak at best and must be improved and strengthened.

Tell the Trump Administration to reject the proposal to rollback disaster prevention plans for chemical plant accidents (see suggested comment below)

Suggested comment:

The proposed Risk Management Plan (RMP) Amendments reduce protections from chemical plant accidents with disproportionate impact on people of color and low-income communities. The rollback, if adopted, will directly subvert the goals and commitments of Executive Order 12898 [Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations]. As stated by the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform,

• Rather than serving to “improve on-the-ground results for overburdened communities through reduced impacts,” the action will increase hazards and impacts in these communities, as documented in EPA’s Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of the action;

• Instead of “institutionaliz(ing) environmental justice [EJ] integration in EPA decision-making,” the action will proceed without addressing EJ issues or providing for meaningful involvement of affected communities;
• Rather than strengthening the agency’s ability “to take action on environmental justice and cumulative impacts,” the action will eliminate regulatory elements and tools that would have helped address these impacts;
• Instead of “deepen(ing) environmental justice practice within EPA programs to improve the health and environment of overburdened communities,” the action will ignore EJ consideration requirements and worsened the health and environment of EJ communities by the agency’s own hand;
• Rather than “work(ing) with partners to expand our positive impact within overburdened communities,” the action will create negative impacts and has been developed while the agency refuses to respond to EJ community requests for meaningful involvement.

We urge you to reject the proposed changes to the RMP. Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

———-

Note on posting in Regulations.gov –the method federal agencies use to collect public comments. These types of action are not “one-click” because the federal government only receives your comment through the regulations.gov webpage. That is why we are providing language that you can cut-and-paste onto the federal government’s regulations.gov webpage. Signing your name to a petition is not as effective as your individual comments cut-and-pasted on the regulations.gov webpage.

Not sure how to do this? Follow these simple steps:

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

Thank you for taking action!

(Beyond Pesticides, August, 20, 2018) Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) has announced a plan to phase out the outdoor use of two neonicotinoid insecticides — thiamethoxam and clothianidin — over three to five years, due to concerns about their effects on aquatic invertebrates. This comes after their 2016 proposal to phase out another neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, for the same concerns, but the proposal has not been finalized. In April, the European Union (EU) voted to ban the most widely used neonicotinoids, citing risks to bees.

Earlier this year, PMRA proposed to phase out a number of uses of neonicotinoids in order to mitigate risks to pollinators. And now, after the Canadian agency initiated a special review based on a preliminary analysis of available information on the concentrations and frequency of detection of clothianidin in aquatic environment, the agency has proposed another round of phase-outs. The agency’s review focused on assessing potential risk to aquatic invertebrates exposed to clothianidin applied as a seed, foliar or soil treatment. The assessment finds that, in aquatic environments in Canada, clothianidin and thiamethoxam are both being measured at concentrations that are harmful to aquatic insects. These insects, according to the agency, are an important part of the ecosystem, including as a food source for fish, birds and other animals. The agency goes on the state further, “Based on currently available information, most outdoor uses in Canada are not sustainable.”

For instance, clothianidin uses on corn and soybean (seed treatment), potatoes, vegetables, and orchards and vineyards (foliar spray) led to frequent exceedances to the chronic level of concern for freshwater invertebrates. As a result, PMRA proposing to cancel all outdoor uses of clothianidin and thiamethoxam on food and feed crops, including seed treatments, and on turf. This will occur over a three to five-year timeframe. The agency will also “consider alternate risk management proposals, provided that they can achieve acceptable levels in the environment within the same timeframe.”

Canadian beekeepers have reported significant losses since neonicotinoids were given conditional registration by PMRA. Despite growing complaints, PMRA continued to renew conditional registrations. This new decision, along with the 2016 proposed decision on imidicloprid, brings Canada in line with the European Union which banned the pesticides in April this year after a moratorium on their use since 2013

The proposed special review decision is open for public consultation for 90 days.

PMRA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collaborate on their pollinator assessments, which are based on the jointly developed harmonized Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. In 2016, PMRA released its aquatic assessment of imidacloprid which found that the pesticide was building up in the surface and groundwater water and causing widespread death among aquatic insects. Its interim recommendation then was to ban imidacloprid from most agricultural and outdoor uses entirely, however, a final decision has been delayed. EPA’s assessment of imidacloprid also found high risks to aquatic insects. Earlier this year, EPA ended its public comment period for the ecological impacts of the neonicotinoids, with the separate pollinator assessments released last year. EPA’s risk assessments find deadly impacts to birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, poisoned insect prey, and contaminated grasses. However, EPA has not indicated whether it will restrict or ban the use of these chemicals.

In April 2018, European Union (EU) member states backed a proposal to further restrict uses of bee-toxic neonicotinoids finding the pesticides’ outdoor uses harm bees. These restrictions go beyond those already put in place in 2013, and now all outdoor uses of clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam will be banned. According to the European Commission, the protection of bees is an important issue since it concerns biodiversity, food production, and the environment.

Researchers have found that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction. A recent study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers found neonicotinoids widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that harm aquatic insects, and potentially the aquatic food web—the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems. The Beyond Pesticides report Poisoned Waterways documents the persistence of neonicotinoids in U.S. waterbodies and the danger they cause to aquatic organisms, resulting in complex cascading impacts on the aquatic food web. The report also highlights current regulatory failures of EPA aquatic standards, which continue to underestimate risks to sensitive species, due to a reliance on test protocols that do not reflect real-world exposures or susceptibilities.

The loss of bees represents a significant issue for food sources since about one-third of food crops require pollinators for production.  Numerous scientific studies implicate neonicotinoid pesticides as key contributors to the global decline of pollinator populations. EPA’s own scientists have found that neonicotinoids pose far-reaching risks not only to bees but to birds and aquatic invertebrates.

Previous studies have indeed found neonicotinoids to be associated with altered feeding behaviors and reduced egg development in bumblebee queens, as well as the inhibition of pollination skills among bumblebee workers, the loss of bumblebees’ characteristic “buzz” pollination technique, and reductions in overall colony size.

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

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

Source: The Star; Health Canada

(Beyond Pesticides, August 17) Please comment by the deadline of Monday, August 20, 2018, 11:59 pm EDT. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has announced plans to weaken one of our country’s bedrock environmental laws, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA provides a foundation for environmental law in the U.S., and requires a precautionary approach that is stronger than other laws. NEPA requires the government to investigate and publish results concerning all alternatives –including a “no action” alternative of major federal actions.

While the NEPA regulations can be improved, the current administration has been dismantling environmental protection programs. We do not believe that this is the time to open up NEPA regulations, given the importance of this program. Tell the Trump Administration to enforce current CEQ regulations –during this period when we are seeing serious degradation of the environment with the loss of species 100 to 1000 times the normal rate, tropical diseases advancing into temperate regions in step with global climate change, and elevated environmentally induced diseases, such as cancer, asthma, and autism.

The American Bird Conservancy and other organizations are submitting detailed comments, which can be viewed here for more background.

CEQ is accepting comments through Regulations.gov. For quick copy and paste, use the text below to comment at Regulations.gov. Add a personal message at the beginning about why this is important to you, if possible.

Suggested comments:

CEQ’s regulations provide a well-crafted, comprehensive framework for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA. The regulations have stood the test of time well. Rather than contemplating a rewrite of the regulations, we urge that CEQ invest its modest resources, and most importantly, its leadership position, in a systematic initiative to enforce them. Changes to the regulations will not result in improvements unless federal agencies have the organizational structure and resources that facilitate their implementation. The single most important key to efficiency and effectiveness is having competent, trained, and adequate staff in agencies to implement the regulations. The existing regulations already address many of the questions raised by CEQ in regard to reducing paperwork and delay. What is lacking is the capacity and will to fully implement the regulations.

CEQ has an essential leadership role in ensuring that agencies receive the appropriate direction and resources. As the agency with NEPA oversight responsibility, CEQ should lead an effort to identify the real-world obstacles to implementing those provisions and ensure that the goals of inclusive analyses and informed decision making are met. Only after undertaking such an effort should CEQ consider whether any regulatory revisions are warranted.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Note on posting in Regulations.gov –the method federal agencies use to collect public comments/

Not sure how to do this? Follow these simple steps:

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

Thank you for taking action!

(Beyond Pesticides, August 16, 2018) The jury verdict last week awarding groundskeeper Dewayne “Lee” Johnson $289 million in compensatory and punitive damages because of the carcinogenic effect caused by the herbicide glyphosate/Roundup, which he used, brought to the forefront a long standing concern about inadequate regulation of hazardous pesticides and chemical industry corruption. In the case, the jury heard from numerous scientists and medical experts, including Christopher Portier, Ph.D., who has researched the toxicity and carcinogenicity of glyphosate.

One of the challenges in the court case was overcoming the lack of regulatory action on glyphosate, despite the overwhelming science indicating its adverse effects, including its connection to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Globally, food safety agencies have spent the past few years insisting that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Health and environment advocates point to the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designation of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” as the knell to which regulators, pesticide users, and the public should pay attention. The jury listened and considered the scientific facts. Glyphosate has perhaps been the subject of more controversy than any other pesticide in recent memory. Advocates in the scientific and environmental realms note the multiple risks its use represents, while industry and big agriculture sometimes minimize or deny those impacts, and even dismiss or distort the science.

Dr. Portier has worked tirelessly since 2015 to convince the world that the IARC is correct in its designation. As an expert on carcinogenicity, he participated in a working group of the U.N. World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) IARC assessment. His background includes a PhD in biostatistics, more than 30 years of research experience in the U.S. federal government, and tenure as a division chief of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The central argument he proffers is that world food safety agencies rely on research conducted by the pesticide industry, including glyphosate/Roundup’s manufacturer Monsanto, rather than conduct or commission independent scientific studies as the bases of their determinations. As Politico reports, Dr. Portier stated, during a hearing in the European Parliament this summer on the quality of the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) glyphosate evaluation, “‘Agencies need to write their own reviews and not rely upon reviews written by industry. . . . As I’ve pointed out to all of my students over the years, he who writes the first draft sets the tone of the paper. Allowing industry to write their own reviews is certainly likely to bias the evaluation.’”

Dr. Portier has challenged multiple entities in the glyphosate controversy: Germany’s chief food regulators, who ruled that glyphosate is safe in the food supply, and the EFSA, which in 2015 deemed glyphosate to be unlikely to cause cancer in humans. In 2017 he intensively lobbied Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, as well as other senior commissioners, to revoke glyphosate’s license in the European Union.

Soon after the issuance of the IARC report, Dr. Portier began his campaign, in light of the EFSA ruling, to tout the IARC findings and push back against EFSA’s. That campaign has led to a fair amount of strife and drama among the various European entities involved in the controversy, and between IARC and EFSA, in particular. Dr. Portier’s efforts culminated in a missive from him and 96 scientists to the European Health Commissioner, citing their “deep concern” about EFSA’s glyphosate assessment. At one point, a number of NGOs alleged that EFSA had essentially used swaths of language — verbatim — from Monsanto’s “research” in its own published assessment. EFSA’s argument was that the language had been “peer reviewed.” (Monsanto was the creator and manufacturer of the ubiquitous, glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup. In 2018 the company was bought out by Bayer, which is retiring the Monsanto name because of its “baggage” in the public square.)

Meanwhile, several investigations, including one reported in Politico, led to claims that IARC had seen several studies that found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer, but ignored them in its final report. Despite EFSA Executive Director Bernhard Url’s fervent wish for EFSA and IARC to meet and calm the conflict over which agency’s work is credible, IARC Director Christopher Wild has refused. Further, Monsanto lawyers have alleged that Dr. Portier had a conflict of interest when he was soliciting signatories to his letter to the European Health Commissioner. Politico reports that the company’s lawyers “have challenged Portier being used as a specialist in an ongoing court case between cancer patients and the pesticide maker, going after him for accepting roughly $160,000 in payments from the plaintiffs’ lawyers while he was holding discussions with regulatory agencies in both the U.S. and Europe about glyphosate. Portier and those who paid him note that all of Portier’s work conducted with IARC concluded before his services were retained by plaintiffs.”

For his part, Dr. Portier stands by his actions and has encouraged scientists from IARC and EFSA to put their heads together to determine how to align their methodologies for evaluating scientific data. He said in an interview with Politico, “I would not do anything differently [from what I’ve done]. EFSA has scientific shortfalls and flaws in the evaluation of glyphosate and they have yet to fix those scientific flaws.” He added that that IARC’s methods of evaluating data — especially epidemiological data — were far superior to those used by EFSA, which was part of the reason IARC concluded that glyphosate “probably causes cancer in humans.”

Across, the pond, the controversy over glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity is showing up in courts in the U.S. California, which moved in 2017 to list the toxic herbicide as a “probable carcinogen” under its Proposition 65 law, saw that listing challenged in that same year by Monsanto in State Superior Court (which challenge Monsanto lost), and again early in 2018 in Federal Court in the Eastern District of California by the Attorneys General of 11 states, Monsanto, and the National Association of Wheat Growers. Meanwhile, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) reported at the end of July 2018 that there are more than 450 lawsuits pending against Monsanto in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Those cases generally allege both that exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide caused them or loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a blood cancer, and that Monsanto engaged in a cover-up of the risks of the toxic herbicide. USRTK also reports that thousands of other plaintiffs have litigated Monsanto in state courts; plaintiffs’ attorneys put that number at approximately 4,000.

Mr. Johnson’s first, and landmark, case in the U.S. accusing Monsanto’s Roundup of causing cancer came to trial in June 2018 in San Francisco County Superior Court. (Another is scheduled to come to trial in October in St. Louis.) Mr. Johnson, a 46-year-old father of three and former school groundskeeper in northern California, used Roundup regularly in the course of his job duties, was diagnosed with NHL at age 42, and is now terminally ill. Jurors in the case were given the go-ahead by Judge Curtis Karnow to consider not only scientific research on glyphosate, but also, evidence that Monsanto has engaged in deliberate and protracted cover-ups to keep the risks of exposures to glyphosate hidden from the public and regulators. The judge also opened the way for punitive damages to be levied against the company. Monsanto’s defense maintained that “there is no justification for any of the claims, and asserted there were decades of regulatory findings of safety and hundreds of research studies to back its defense. ‘Glyphosate is the most tested herbicide in history,’ Monsanto stated in its trial brief.”

Plaintiff’s attorneys used the IARC designation of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, as well as many of Dr. Portier’s arguments, in its evidentiary offerings. Certainly, Monsanto lawyered up to protect its $15 million-plus annual revenue stream from the sale of Roundup and the seeds that the company genetically engineers to tolerate the herbicide — never mind the years of financial investment in these products. This case is considered something of a bellwether on where this major controversy is headed. As research director of the U.S. Right to Know and reporter for The Guardian, Carey Gillam wrote before the trial, “If Johnson prevails, there could be many more years of costly litigation and hefty damage claims. If Monsanto successfully turns back the challenge, it could derail other cases and lift pressure on the firm.”

Beyond Pesticides, which has expressed grave concern about glyphosate for many years, applauded the outcome for Mr. Johnson and supports other plaintiffs and attorneys in pursuing their cases. It is critical that manufacturers of toxic pesticides be held accountable for the havoc they wreak on human and environmental health, and for any malfeasance in which they may have engaged. In a best-case scenario, that accountability will translate to broad recognition of the dangers of pesticides, and far-better regulation of these chemical compounds, and encourage the urgent need to shift to organic practices.

Beyond Pesticides urges communities to ban the use of glyphosate/Roundup in their communities and begin the transition to organic land management. If you want to take action in your community to ban glyphosate, use Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet and report to advance your effort: See our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup, our report Glyphosate/Roundup Exposed, and coverage and background on the glyphosate/Roundup lawsuit. See Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes page.

See Carey Gillam’s talk on Monsanto’s corruption on glyphosate/Roundup at Beyond Pesticides’ 36^th National Pesticide Forum. To get the real story on the undue influence of the chemical industry and the failure of regulators to act to protect health and the environment, watch this talk.

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

Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/glyphosate-carcinogenic-debate-christoper-portier-the-man-europes-food-watchdog-fears-the-most/

(Beyond Pesticides, August 15, 2018) The recent court ruling awarding $289 million in compensatory and punitive damages to a groundskeeper after he contracted cancer while working with Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate) is having a ripple effect around the globe. In light of the decision, the environmental group Greenpeace is calling on the Australian government to suspend the sale of Roundup. Meanwhile, German lawmakers are eager to see glyphosate banned.

A California jury found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who worked as as groundskeeper and used the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide, which he proved caused his cancer. The jury found that Monsanto “knew for decades” the product was potentially dangerous and acted “with malice or oppression” by failing to warn Johnson of the risks.

Now Greenpeace is calling on the Australian government to take “urgent action” to suspend the sale of the weedkiller. “We need to be urgently exercising the precautionary principle,” said Jamie Hanson, Greenpeace’s head of campaigns. “Use of this dangerous product should be severely restricted.

In Australia, the U.S. court decision sent shares of Australian pesticide-maker, Nufarm Ltd, tumbling almost 17 percent to a more than two-year low. Analysts estimate Nufarm earns about a fifth of its revenue from products containing glyphosate, the world’s most widely-used herbicide. Shares of Germany’s Bayer, who now owns Monsanto despite strong voices of opposition from grassroots advocates, also fell more than 10 percent. And now a spokesman for the German environment ministry said Germany aims to end the use of glyphosate-based pesticide products during the current legislative period which ends in three years. Meanwhile, the UK hardware chain, Homebase, announced it would review its sale of Roundup in the wake of the court decision.

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Since then, Monsanto has been hard at work trying to undermine findings that show its flagship product, glyphosate, is anything other than “safe.” However, its attempts to unduly influence and undermine scientific research and government review of its product has been disclosed widely in the press. Concerns about cancer are compounded when tests continue to detect glyphosate is common foods. Glyphosate levels were found in Cheerios, Pita Chips, and in breast milk,  German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and bread, as well as in nearly 100% of Germans tested. In The U.S. public interest, food safety, and environmental organizations have been calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban glyphosate.

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

If you want to take action in your community to ban glyphosate, use Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet and report to advance your effort: See our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup, our report Glyphosate/Roundup Exposed, and coverage and background on the glyphosate/Roundup lawsuit.

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

Source: The Guardian, Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, August 14, 2018) A federal judge in Brazil has ordered the suspension of the most widely used pesticide in the world, glyphosate. Under the ruling, new products may not be registered in the country until the Brazilian government reevaluates the herbicide’s toxicity. Glyphosate (Roundup) is used widely in Brazil on genetically engineered (GE) crops, which have been subject of concern in the country.

This decision preceded a jury verdict last Friday in San Francisco that handed a 46-year-old groundskeeper $289 million for compensatory and punitive damages associated with his non-Hodgkin lymphoma tied to glyphosate/Roundup exposure. Monsanto, glyphosate’s manufacturer saw its stock plunge 14%, or approximately $11 billion, the next day, according to Bloomberg News. Monsanto told the Wall Street Journal that it would appeal the decision. According to Therecorder, “So far, more than 4,000 people have sued over Roundup, most in Missouri and California state courts. About 470 cases have been coordinated in California federal court as multidistrict litigation.” The San Francisco case was heard first because of the plaintiff’s poor health.

The judge in Brasilia ruled on August 3, 2018 that new products containing the chemical could not be registered in the country and existing registrations would be suspended within the next 30 days until the government reevaluates their toxicology. The ruling has broad commercial implications for the chemical’s manufacturer, Monsanto, which markets glyphosate and glyphosate-tolerant GE soybeans, planted on a large scale in Brazil. Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of soybeans. Certain glyphosate-tolerant GE corn and cotton strains have also been registered in Brazil. The decision, which could be subject to multiple appeals, also applies to the insecticide abamectin and the fungicide thiram.

In addition to the San Francisco verdict, the woes for glyphosate and Monsanto continue to escalate. Last month, a federal judge in the U.S. ruled that hundreds of lawsuits against Monsanto by cancer survivors or families of those who died can proceed to trial, finding there was sufficient evidence for a jury to hear the cases that blame the company’s glyphosate products for the disease. Monsanto also faces lawsuits from farmers who have been hit with crop losses as a result of dicamba damage. Monsanto sold dicamba-tolerant GE seeds to farmers so that they can spray dicamba to control glyphosate-resistant weeds, but dicamba drift caused hundreds of complaints and thousands of acres of crop damages. Advocates and victims of damage argue that Monsanto places profits ahead of possible damage to crops when it markets GE seeds.

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

Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice allowed two large agrichemical corporations, Bayer and Monsanto, to merge, despite strong voices of opposition from grassroots advocates across the country, and investigations by state attorneys general. Bayer is opting to ditch Monsanto’s name, possibly as soon as late summer, when the acquisition is expected to be completed.

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

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

Source: Reuters, Bloomberg, Marketwatch

(Beyond Pesticides, August 13, 2018) Tell USDA to Follow the EU in Classifying New Mutagenesis Techniques as GMO. The Court of Justice of the European Union has highlighted the fact that failing to classify mutagenesis (purposeful changes in DNA) as genetic engineering is a backdoor way of allowing GMOs (genetically modified organisms) without labeling them as such. The court issued an opinion on July 25, saying, “Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs [genetically engineered organisms] and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO directive.” Although the opinion does not apply to techniques that “have been conventionally used in a number of applications and have a long safety record,” the court says that member states may subject even those organisms to the obligations of the GMO or other directives. The court finds that the risks of new mutagenesis techniques, may yield results –and risks— similar to those of transgenesis (introducing genes from other organisms), and should thus be regulated as genetically engineered organisms.

Tell USDA to classify mutagenesis techniques as GMO.

This issue is one on which the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture requested comment during an informal comment period that ended July 17. Given the importance of the EU Court finding for consumer transparency and international trade, AMS must consider the ruling in defining “bioengineering” (genetic modification) for the purposes of labeling GMO food produced in the U.S. It must also consider it in developing regulations and policies governing the National Organic Program.

The opinion of the Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice states, “For the Applicants, the use of herbicide resistant seed varieties obtained by mutagenesis carries a risk of significant harm to the environment and to human and animal health. It leads to an accumulation of carcinogenic molecules or endocrine disruptors in cultivated plants intended for human or animal consumption. The Applicants refer, moreover, to the risks of unintentional effects, such as undesired or off-target mutations on other parts of the genome. They consider that this is the result of the techniques employed when modification of the genome takes place in vitro and for the regeneration of plants from the cells thus modified.”

Tell USDA to classify mutagenesis techniques as GMO.

Letter to USDA

USDA must classify mutagenesis techniques, which change the genetic information of an organism, as genetically modified/bioengineered for the purposes of GMO labeling and as excluded methods for organic regulations. Failing to classify mutagenesis as genetic engineering is a backdoor way of allowing GMOs without labeling them as such. The use of herbicide- resistant seed varieties obtained by mutagenesis carries a risk of significant harm to the environment and to human and animal health, leading to an accumulation of carcinogenic chemicals or endocrine disruptors in cultivated plants intended for human or animal consumption. In addition, unintended effects, including undesired or off-target mutations in other parts of the genome, may result from the techniques employed when modification of the genome takes place through modern mutagenesis techniques.

 The Court of Justice of the European Union issued an opinion on July 25, saying, “Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs [genetically engineered organisms] and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO directive.” Although the opinion does not apply to techniques that “have been conventionally used in a number of applications and have a long safety record,” the court says that member states may subject even those organisms to the obligations of the GMO or other directives. The court finds that the risks of new mutagenesis techniques, may yield results –and risks— similar to those of transgenesis, and should thus be regulated as genetically engineered organisms.

 This issue is one on which the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) requested comment during an informal comment period that ended July 17. Given the importance of the EU Court finding for consumer transparency and international trade, AMS must consider the ruling in defining “bioengineering” (genetic modification) for the purposes of labeling GMO food produced in the U.S. It must also consider it in developing regulations and policies governing the National Organic Program. Such consideration will lead to the conclusion that USDA must classify mutagenesis techniques as genetically modified/bioengineered for the purposes of GMO labeling and as excluded methods for organic regulations.

 Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, August 12, 2018) In a stunning legal victory for a man who contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) after using the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup), groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson won a $289 million jury verdict against the chemical’s manufacturer, Monsanto. The jury on August 10, 2018 awarded the 46-year old Mr. Johnson $39 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages. The jury found that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression.”

“We applaud and thank Mr. Johnson, and his family and attorneys, for persevering in this litigation, which sets a critically important standard for protecting people’s right not be poisoned by pesticides in the marketplace,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. Mr. Feldman continued: “While we know that the jury verdict cannot restore Mr. Johnson’s health, we believe that the verdict is a clarion call to manufacturers that ignore the devastating impact that their products can have on unsuspecting workers, consumers, and families. We look forward to the day in the not-too-distant future when we recognize as a society that products like glyphosate (Roundup) are not necessary, and effective and affordable land and building management can be achieved without toxic chemicals. The case should also signal to all levels of government – local, state, and federal – that we have a social, public health, and environmental responsibility to remove toxic pesticides from use with a high degree of urgency.”

The law firms representing Mr. Johnson, the Miller Firm and Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, describes the case (reprinted below) as follows:

Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company is the first Roundup cancer lawsuit to proceed to trial. The lawsuit alleges exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer and its active ingredient, glyphosate, caused Northern California resident Dewayne “Lee” Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).

Quick link to trial transcripts

Quick link to trial exhibits

Quick link to trial news

Lee Johnson worked as a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District in the San Francisco Bay Area. Between 2012 and 2015, part of Mr. Johnson’s job was to apply Monsanto herbicides to school properties.

In 2014, Lee began to experience severe skin irritation, which he reported to health care providers. He also contacted Monsanto, asking if his skin irritation could have been caused by his use of Roundup. Internal Monsanto emails later obtained by Lee’s attorneys show that his queries concerning Roundup were discussed among company employees. However, Monsanto never responded to Mr. Johnson, so he continued to use Roundup.

In August of 2014, Lee was diagnosed with epidermotropic T-cell lymphoma. After his diagnosis, his job still required him to apply and be in close contact with Monsanto glyphosate-based herbicides. Despite enduring chemotherapy treatments throughout 2015, Mr. Johnson’s cancer progressed. In September 2017, a biopsy revealed mycosis fungoides (non-Hodgkin lymphoma with large cell transformation).

Mr. Johnson filed a Roundup cancer lawsuit against Monsanto in 2016. He is represented by the Miller Firm and Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman.

In the documents below, you will find trial transcripts and exhibits (posted after 48-hour delay) and other court documents from Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company. For access to all public documents in this case, you can view the docket via the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

If you are looking for the court documents from the federal Monsanto Roundup litigation (MDL), please visit the Monsanto Court Papers page.

If you are looking for unsealed Monsanto emails, communications, studies and other memoranda, please visit the Monsanto Papers page.

Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Trial Transcripts

Day 1: 7/9/18 – Plaintiff opening statement by R. Brent Wisner and Defense opening statement by George C. Lombardi

Day 2: 7/10/18 – Video deposition of Dr. Mark Martens, former Monsanto executive, Toxicology Agriculture Research & Development Director for Monsanto Europe and video deposition of Dr. William Heydens, Product Safety Assessment Strategy Lead

Day 3 A: 7/12/18 – Dr. Christopher Portier, former Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, direct by Brent Wisner

Day 3 B: 7/12/18 – Dr. Christopher Portier direct by Brent Wisner resumed

Day 4 A: 7/13/18 – Dr. Christopher Portier direct by Brent Wisner resumed, cross by Kirby Griffis

Day 4 B: 7/13/18 – Dr. Christopher Portier cross by Kirby Griffis resumed

Day 5 A: 7/16/18 – Dr. Christopher Portier cross by Kirby Griffis resumed

Day 5 B: 7/16/18 – Dr. Christopher Portier cross by Kirby Griffis resumed, redirect by Brent Wisner

Day 6 A: 7/17/18  – Dr. Christopher Portier redirect by Brent Wisner resumed, video deposition of Dr. William Heydens continued from Day 2, Monsanto Co. Product Safety Assessment Strategy Lead

Day 6 B: 7/17/18 –   Video deposition of Daniel Jenkins, Monsanto’s former US Agency Manager for Regulatory Affairs, video deposition of Daniel Goldstein, Monsanto Co. Lead, Medical Sciences and Outreach and Distinguished Science Fellow

Day 7 A: 7/18/18 – Dr. Alfred Neugut, medical oncologist and cancer epidemiologist at Columbia University, direct by Brent Wisner

Day 7 B: 7/18/18 – Dr. Alfred Neugut direct by Brent Wisner resumed, cross by George Lombardi, redirect by Brent Wisner, recross by George Lombardi, re-redirect by Brent Wisner

Day 8 A: 7/20/18 – Dr. Chadi Nabhan, hematologist and medical oncologist, direct by David Dickens

Day 8 B:  7/20/18 – Dr. Chadi Nabhan, direct by David Dickens resumed, cross by George Lombardi, redirect by David Dickens, recross by George Lombardi, re-redirect by David Dickens

Day 9 A: 7/23/18 – Dr. Ope Ofodile, Mr. Johnson’s dermatologist, direct by Brent Wisner, redirect by Kirby Griffis; Araceli Johnson, plaintiff’s wife, direct by David Dickens; Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, plaintiff, direct by David Dickens

Day 9 B: 7/23/18 – Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, plaintiff, direct by David Dickens resumed, cross by Sandra Edwards, video deposition of Daniel Goldstein resumed

Day 10 A: 7/24/18 – Video deposition of Daniel Goldstein resumed, video deposition of Donna Farmer, Product Protection and Nutrition Lead, Monsanto Company

Day 10 B: 7/24/18 – Video deposition of Donna Farmer resumed

Day 11: 7/25/18 – No transcripts – Jury not present – though exhibits were admitted

Day 12 A: 7/26/18 – William Robert Sawyer, toxicologist, direct by David Dickens

Day 12 B: 7/26/18 – William Robert Sawyer, direct by David Dickens resumed, cross by George Lombardi, redirect by David Dickens, recross by George Lombardi

Day 13 A: 7/27/18 – Charles Benbrook, scientist and agricultural economist, direct by Brent Wisner

Day 13 B: 7/27/18 – Charles Benbrook direct by Brent Wisner resumed, cross by Kirby Griffis, redirect by Brent Wisner, recross by Kirby Griffis

Day 14 A: 7/30/18 – Dr. Kassim Al-Khatib, professor and weed scientist, direct by Sandra Edwards, voir dire examination by Brent Wisner, cross by Brent Wisner

Day 14 B: 7/30/18 – Cross resumed by Brent Wisner, redirect by Sandra Edwards, recross by Brent Wisner, video deposition of Dr. Matthew Ross played, video deposition of epidemiologist Aaron Blair played.

Day 15 A: 7/31/18 – Lorelei Mucci, associate professor of epidemiology, direct by George Lombardi, voir dire examination by Brent Wisner, direct resumed by George Lombardi

Day 15 B: 7/31/18 – Lorelei Mucci, cross by Brent Wisner, redirect by George Lombardi, recross by Brent Wisner

Day 16 A: 8/2/18 – Dr. Warren Foster, direct by Kirby Griffis, voir dire examination by Brent Wisner, direct resumed by Kirby Griffis

Day 16 B: 8/2/18 – Dr. Warren Foster, direct continued by Kirby Griffis, cross by Brent Wisner, redirect by Kirby Griffis, recross by Brent Wisner

Day 17 A: 8/3/18 – Dr. Timothy Kuzel, hematologist and oncologist, direct by Kirby Griffis, voir dire examination by David Dickens, direct continued by Kirby Griffis, cross by David Dickens

Day 17 B: 8/3/18 – Dr. Timothy Kuzel, cross continued by David Dickens

Day 18 A: 8/7/18 – Plaintiff closing statement by Brent Wisner

Day 18 B: 8/7/18 – Defense closing statement by George Lombardi; Plaintiff final statement by Brent Wisner

Plaintiff Closing Slide Presentation by R. Brent Wisner

Day 19: 8/8/18 – Jury intructions given; Jury asks for testimony of Dr. Nabhan

Day 20: 8/9/18 – Jury requests reading of stipulations, Monsanto’s admissions, and Dr. Foster’s testimony

Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Trial Exhibits

PTX = Plaintiff Exhibits | DX = Defense Exhibits

Day 1: 7/9/18

Plaintiff Opening Slide Presentation by R. Brent Wisner

Defendant Opening Slide Presentation by George C. Lombardi

Dr. Kirk Azevedo partial deposition transcript, former Monsanto Sales Representative

PTX 0004 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson in protective spray gear

PTX 0006 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson in protective mask and suit

PTX 0007 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson’s family

PTX 0009 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson and family

PTX 0016 – Photo of tank and equipment

PTX 0018 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson’s hand

PTX 0020 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson’s lesions

PTX 0021 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson’s back

PTX 0022 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson’s torso

PTX 0139 – John Acquavella and Donna Farmer review of Hardell & Eriksson

PTX 0144 – Monsanto email from John Acquavella re: Epidemiology Studies on Glyphosate (2000)

PTX 0182 – Photo of the IARC Working Group, Monograph 112

PTX 0215 – Monsanto email re: Actions from 12/17/98 Meeting on Mutagenicity (1998)

PTX 0216 – Monsanto email re: Draft of Minutes 1/15/99 Meeting (1999)

PTX 0220 – Dr. James Parry: Evaluation of the Potential Genotoxicity of Glyphosate, Glyphosate Mixtures and Component Surfactants

PTX 0221 – Monsanto email re: Parry Report

PTX 0263 – Monsanto email re: Draft of Minutes 1/15/99 Meeting (1999)

PTX 0264 – Dr. Parry report with handwritten comments (1999)

PTX 0292 – Monsanto’s IARC Strategy (Feb 2015)

PTX 0293 – Differences in Carcinogenic Evaluation of Glyphosate Between IARC and EFSA (Portier, 2016)

PTX 0294 – Monsanto email re: IARC Evaluation of Glyphosate (2014)

PTX 0306 – American Cancer Society: Known and Probable Human Carcinogens

PTX 0312 – Monsanto email re: McDuffee Article

PTX 0366 – Monsanto email re: Document List (2015)

PTX 0373 – Monsanto email re: Glyphosate Toxicology Activities (2010)

PTX 0377 – Williams, Kroes, Munro Study

PTX-0482-Monsanto email re: Glyphosate and NHL / Alachlor (2003)

PTX 0513 – Monsanto email re: Beyond-Pesticides Article (2008)

PTX 0669 – Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the AHS (2017)

PTX 0686 – Genotoxic Activity of Glyphosate / Roundup Study (1997)

PTX 0701 – Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Glyphosate Exposure and Risk of Lymphohematopoietic Cancers (2016)

PTX 0710 – Integrative Assessment of Multiple Pesticides as Risk Factors for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Among Men, De Roos (2003)

PTX 0756 – Monsanto email re: Popular Herbicide Linked to Cancers

PTX 0766 – Does Exposure to Glyphosate Lead to an Increase in the Micronuclei Frequency? A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review (2016)

PTX 0777 – Exposure to Pesticides as Risk Factor for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Hairy Cell Leukemia: Pooled Analysis of Two Swedish Case-Control Studies

PTX 0784 – IARC Glyphosate Monograph 112

PTX 0809 – Genotoxicity and Oxidative Stress Induced by Pesticide Exposure in Bovine Lymphocyte Cultures in vitro (1998)

PTX 0818 – Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Specific Pesticide Exposures in Men: Cross-Canada Study of Pesticides and Health (2001)

PTX 0842 – P- Post Labeling Detection of DNA Adducts in Mice Treated with the Herbicide Roundup (1998)

PTX 0852 – Genotoxicity testing of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate isopropylamine using the mouse bone marrow micronucleus test, Salmonella mutagenicity test, and Allium anaphase-telophase test (1993)

PTX 0861 – Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2014)

Day 2: 7/10/18

Martens Depo Exhibits

Dr. Mark Martens partial deposition transcript, former Monsanto Executive, Toxicology Agriculture Research & Development Director for Monsanto Europe

DX 2181 – CV for Dr. Mark Martens

PTX 0208 – Monsanto email re: Fellow Nomination (2001)

PTX 0209 – Surfactant Toxicology Report: Europe and Africa

PTX 0215 – Monsanto email re: Actions from 12/17/98 Meeting on Mutagenicity (1998)

PTX 0216 – Monsanto email re: Draft of Minutes 1/15/99 Meeting (1999)

PTX 0217 – CV for Dr. James Parry

PTX 0218 – Monsanto email re: Meeting Minutes 2/25 (1999)

PTX 0219 – Monsanto email re: Comments on Parry write-up (1999)

PTX 0220 – Dr. James Parry: Evaluation of the Potential Genotoxicity of Glyphosate, Glyphosate Mixtures and Component Surfactants

PTX 0221 – Monsanto Email re: Parry Report

PTX 0269 – Monsanto Email fw: Meeting Prof Parry 15 Feb 2001

PTX 0270 – Monsanto Email re: Comments on Parry write-up (1999)

Heydens Depo Exhibits

Dr. William Heydens partial deposition transcript, Monsanto Company Product Safety Assessment Strategy Lead

PTX 0294 – Monsanto email re: IARC Evaluation of Glyphosate (2014)

PTX 0336 – Monsanto email re: Post-IARC Activities to Support Glyphosate (2015)

PTX 0357 – Monsanto email re: CE Collaboration Project (2015)

PTX 0359 – Monsanto email re: Need for telephone conversation/Followup (2016)

PTX 0361 – Consulting Agreement for Larry Kier (2015)

PTX 0362 – Monsanto email re: IARC Planning (2015)

PTX 0363 – Monsanto email re: Glyphosate Expert Panel Manuscripts (2016)

PTX 0366 – Monsanto email re: Document List (2015)

PTX 0368 – Monsanto email re: RE: summary article

PTX 0369 – Monsanto email fw: Genotoxicity Panel Final Manuscript (2016)

PTX 0373 – Monsanto Email re: Glyphosate Toxicology Activities (2010)

PTX 0378 – Monsanto email re: Scientific Outreach Council Meeting (1999)

PTX 0379 – Monsanto email re: Revised IARC reactive messaging (2015)

PTX 0383 – Monsanto email re: KP Conversation on POEA (2010)

PTX 0391 – Monsanto email re: Proposal for Post‐IARC Meeting Scientific Projects (2015)

PTX 0394 – Monsanto email re: Declaration of Interest (2016)

PTX 0883 – Critical Reviews in Toxicology: A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment (2016)

Day 3: 7/12/18 

PTX 0166 – IARC Preamble

PTX 0292 – Monsanto’s IARC Strategy (Feb 2015)

PTX 0295 – IARC Monograph 112 list of participants

PTX 0640 – EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (2005)

PTX 0710 – Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among men; De Roos (2003)

PTX 0784 – IARC Glyphosate Monograph 112

PTX 0818 – Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Specific Pesticide Exposures in Men: Cross-Canada Study of Pesticides and Health (2001)

PTX 0884 – Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans; Williams, Kroes, Munro (2000)

PTX 1020 – Demo 2: Mice Studies | Tumors Chart

PTX 1021 – Demo 3: Rat Studies | Tumors Chart

PTX 1022 – Demo 4: Epidemiology Plot Summary of ever/never

PTX 1023 – Demo 5: Confidence Interval Probability Curve

PTX 1024 – Demo 6: Tumor Formation Diagram

Day 4: 7/13/18

PTX 1030 – Estimated Agricultural Use of Glyphosate 1993 and 2015

DX 2212 – Dr. Christopher Portier deposition transcript, former Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, former Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), former Associate Director of National Institutes of Health, former Director of the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), former Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

DX 2320 – ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment Opinion proposing harmonised classification and labelling at EU level of glyphosate (2018)

DX 2323 – EFSA: Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate (2015)

DX 2403 – Dr. Christopher Portier Email re: IARC Monograph on Glyphosate (2015)

DX 2437 – EPA Cancer Assessment Review Committee Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate (2015)

DX 2570 – Critical Reviews in Toxicology: Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies (2015)

DX 2735 – Dr. Christopher Portier and others – open letter: Review of the Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate by EFSA and BfR (2015)

DX 2747 – EFSA Responds to Dr. Christopher Portier’s open letter: Review of the Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate by EFSA and BfR (2016)

DX 2931 – Is Glyphosate Carcinogenic? Debate between Dr. Christopher Portier and Dr. Jose Tarazona

Day 5: 7/16/18

No Exhibits

Day 6: 7/17/18

William Heydens Depo Exhibits

Dr. William Heydens partial deposition transcript (continued from Day 3), Monsanto Company Product Safety Assessment Strategy Lead

PTX 0259 – Ghost Writing Initiated by Commercial Companies – The World Association of Medical Editors

PTX 0295 – IARC Monograph 112 list of participants

PTX 0388 – Monsanto Email re: EPA openly discussed IARC findings at a CLA meeting on Thursday (2015)

PTX 0392 – Monsanto Email re: John, Glyphosate Expert Panel Poster at 2015 SRA Meeting

DX 2114 – Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid (2016)

DX 2220 – Deposition of Dewayne Johnson December of 2016

DX 3010 – Glyphosate in the general population and in applicators: a critical review of studies on exposures; Solomon (2016)

DX 3109 – Glyphosate rodent carcinogenicity bioassay expert panel review (2016)

DX 3110 – Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans

Daniel Jenkins Depo Exhibits

Daniel Jenkins final deposition transcript, Monsanto’s former US Agency Manager for Regulatory Affairs

PTX 0371 – Monsanto Email re: A Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate by Four Independent Expert Panels and Comparison to the IARC Assessment (2016)

PTX 0399 – Monsanto Email Fwd: US Government Outreach – WHO IARC Clarification on Glyphosate (2015)

PTX 0400 – Monsanto Email to Michael Goodis, Jess Rowland and others at EPA (2015)

PTX 0402 – Monsanto Email re: GA Update on US Government Outreach – WHO IARC Clarification on Glyphosate (2015)

PTX 0403 – Monsanto Email re: ATSDR from Jack Housenger EPA (2015)

PTX 0404 – Monsanto Email re: Glyphosate IARC Question (2015)

Daniel Goldstein Depo Exhibits

Dr. Daniel Goldstein partial deposition transcript, Monsanto Co. Lead, Medical Sciences and Outreach and Distinguished Science Fellow

PTX 0309 – Monsanto Email re: NHL abstract (2000)

PTX 0311 – Monsanto Email re: ISSE Meeting – epidemiology studies glyphosate (2004)

PTX 0312 – Monsanto email re: McDuffee Article

PTX 0313 – Monsanto Email re: McDuffee paper (2001)

PTX 0314 – Email Article re: NHL and Glyphosate, Alachlor (2003)

PTX 0315 – Monsanto Email re: FYI Aerial spraying of herbicide ‘damages DNA’ – SciDev.Net (2007)

PTX 0316 – Monsanto Email re: Agenda / Awareness File – IMT (2008)

PTX 0318 – Daniel Goldstein LinkedIn profile

PTX 0319 – Monsanto Email re: New Paper (2014)

PTX 0327 – Monsanto Community Safety and Health (Monsanto website)

PTX 0332 – Monsanto Email re: Ranger Pro Exposure, Dewayne Johnson’s story (2014)

PTX 0333 – Monsanto Email re: March 2015 FIFRA 6(a)(2) Reports (2015)

PTX 0334 – Human Exposure / Adverse Events Incidents Involving Monsanto Lawn & Garden Products, March 2015

PTX 0335 – Monsanto Email re: Round-Up information for posting on the net (2004)

Day 7: 7/18/18

PTX 0284 – IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans; Portier, et al. (2015)

PTX 0669 – Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the AHS (2017)

PTX 0682 – Methodological Issues Regarding Confounding and Exposure Misclassification in Epidemiological Studies of Occupational Exposures; Blair, et al. (2007)

PTX 0684 – Impact of Pesticide Exposure Misclassification on Estimates of Relative Risks in the Agricultural Health Study; Blair, et al. (2011)

PTX 1029 – Dr. Alfred Neugut Demo: Forest Plots of Relative Risk 

PTX 1032 – Glyphosate Use by Year and Crop

PTX 1033 – Bradford-Hill Criteria for Causality

PTX 1034 – Other Pesticides Missed by AHS

DX 2052 – Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study (2017)

DX 2598 – Using multiple imputation to assign pesticide use for non-responders in the follow-up questionnaire in the Agricultural Health Study; Heltshe, et al. (2012)

DX 3153 – Postdiagnosis Changes in Cigarette Smoking and Survival Following Breast Cancer; Parada Jr., et al. (2017)

Day 8: 7/20/18

PTX 0332 – Monsanto Email re: Ranger Pro Exposure, Dewayne Johnson’s story (2014)

PTX 0333 – Monsanto Email re: March 2015 FIFRA 6(a)(2) Reports (2015)

PTX 0820 – Minimum Latency & Types or Categories of Cancer (2015)

PTX 1031 – Lee Johnson: Risk Factors for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (demonstrative board that was filled out before the court)

PTX 1036 – The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of lymphoid neoplasms; Swerdlow, et al.

PTX 1039 – Lee Johnson Timeline

DX 2191 – Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study; De Roos, et al. (2005)

DX 2193 – Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among men; De Roos, et al. (2003)

DX 2505 – Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma histopathological subgroup analysis; Eriksson, Hardell, et al. (2008)

DX 2779 – Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Specific Pesticide Exposures in Men: Cross-Canada Study of Pesticides and Health; McDuffie, et al. (2001)

Day 9: 7/23/18

PTX 0006 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson in protective mask and suit

PTX 0007 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson’s family

PTX 0012 – Photo of the Johnson Family Snowboarding

PTX 0014b – Video of Dewayne Johnson talking about work

PTX 0016 – Photo of tank and equipment

PTX 0018 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson’s hand

PTX 0024 – Photo of Dewayne Johnson and his two sons

PTX 32A – Photos of Dewayne Johnson, Oct. 3, 2014

PTX 32B – Photos of Dewayne Johnson, Oct. 29, 2014

PTX 32E – Photos of Dewayne Johnson, March and April, 2015

PTX 32J – Photos of Dewayne Johnson, Sept. 3, 2015

PTX 0045D – Photos of Dewayne Johnson, June, 2017

PTX 0045E – Photos of Dewayne Johnson, Nov., 2017

PTX 0045F – Photos of Dewayne Johnson, Jan., 2018

PTX 0069 – Human Resources records for Dewayne Johnson, Benicia Unified School District (2017)

PTX 0126 – Photo of Sprayer

PTX 0332 – Monsanto Email re: Ranger Pro Exposure, Dewayne Johnson’s story (2014)

PTX 0334 – Human Exposure / Adverse Events Incidents Involving Monsanto Lawn & Garden Products, March 2015

PTX 0848 – Ranger Pro Herbicide: Complete Directions for Use

Day 10: 7/24/18

Partial Deposition of Donna Farmer

Partial Deposition of Daniel Goldstein

PTX 0227 – Monsanto email re: URGENT – Glyphosate IARC response-request for additional experts (2015)

PTX 0258 – Monsanto email re: First Half… “I added a section in genotox from the Gasnier study…” (2010)

PTX 0261 – Monsanto email re: John, Glyphosate Expert Panel Poster at 2015 SRA Annual Meeting (2015)

PTX 0263 – Monsanto email re: Draft of Minutes 1/15/99 Meeting (1999)

PTX 0264 – Dr. Parry report with handwritten comments (1999)

PTX 0265 – Etheramine Working Group Meeting Notes (1999)

PTX 0266 – Monsanto email re: Mutagenicity assessment of Roundup by Parry (1999)

PTX 0267 – Monsanto email re: micro-MN results (2000)

PTX 0268 – Monsanto email re: Parry report (1999)

PTX 0270 – Monsanto Email re: Comments on Parry write-up (1999)

PTX 0271 – Donna Farmer Product Safety Center Toxicology Goals (2004)

PTX 0272 – Dr. James Parry: Evaluation of the Potential Genotoxicity of Glyphosate, Glyphosate Mixtures and Component Surfactants (1999)

PTX 0282 – Glyphosate Stewardship, Epidemiology and the Farm Family Exposure Study (2002)

PTX 0292 – Monsanto’s IARC Strategy (Feb 2015)

PTX 0294 – Monsanto email re: IARC Evaluation of Glyphosate (2014)

PTX 0304 – Monsanto IARC Media Training (2015)

PTX 0305 – Monsanto email re: Roundup article in Fremantle Herald (2009)

PTX 0336 – Monsanto email re: Post-IARC Activities to Support Glyphosate (2015)

PTX 0357 – Monsanto email re: CE Collaboration Project (2015)

PTX 0361 – Consulting Agreement for Larry Kier (2015)

PTX 0363 – Monsanto email re: Glyphosate Expert Panel Manuscripts (2016)

PTX 0366 – Monsanto email re: Document List (2015)

PTX 0368 – Monsanto email re: RE: summary article

PTX 0369 – Monsanto email fw: Genotoxicity Panel Final Manuscript (2016)

PTX 0371 – Monsanto Email re: A Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate by Four Independent Expert Panels and Comparison to the IARC Assessment (2016)

PTX 0373 – Monsanto email re: Glyphosate Toxicology Activities (2010)

PTX 0378 – Monsanto email re: Scientific Outreach Council Meeting (1999)

PTX 0379 – Monsanto email re: Revised IARC reactive messaging (2015)

PTX 0388 – Monsanto Email re: EPA openly discussed IARC findings at a CLA meeting on Thursday (2015)

PTX 0391 – Monsanto email re: Proposal for Post‐IARC Meeting Scientific Projects (2015)

PTX 0392 – Monsanto Email re: John, Glyphosate Expert Panel Poster at 2015 SRA Meeting

PTX 0400 – Monsanto Email to Michael Goodis, Jess Rowland and others at EPA (2015)

PTX 0402 – Monsanto Email re: GA Update on US Government Outreach – WHO IARC Clarification on Glyphosate (2015)

PTX 0404 – Monsanto Email re: Glyphosate IARC Question (2015)

PTX 0513 – Monsanto email re: Beyond-Pesticides Article (2008)

PTX 0556 – Monsanto Email re: NTP will be Evaluating Glyphosate now! (2016)

DX 2513 – The Toxicity Profiles of Five Surfactants Used in Roundup Branded Agricultural Herbicides (2008)

Day 11: 7/25/18

PTX 0309 – Monsanto Email re: NHL abstract (2000)

PTX 0311 – Monsanto Email re: ISSE Meeting – epidemiology studies glyphosate (2004)

PTX 0312 – Monsanto email re: McDuffee Article

PTX 0313 – Monsanto Email re: McDuffee paper (2001)

PTX 0314 – Email Article re: NHL and Glyphosate, Alachlor (2003)

PTX 0315 – Monsanto Email re: FYI Aerial spraying of herbicide ‘damages DNA’ – SciDev.Net (2007)

PTX 0316 – Monsanto Email re: Agenda / Awareness File – IMT (2008)

PTX 0319 – Monsanto Email re: New Paper (2014)

PTX 0321 – Monsanto Email re: ACSH (2015)

PTX 0326 – Monsanto Email re: Adverse Event Reporting (2015)

Day 12: 7/26/18

No Exhibits Admitted

Day 13: 7/27/18

PTX 0154 – John Acquavella Discussion of Agricultural Health Study Limitations (1997)

PTX 0166 – IARC Preamble

PTX 0169 – IARC Glyphosate Monograph (2015)

PTX 0258 – Monsanto email re: First Half… “I added a section in genotox from the Gasnier study…” (2010)

PTX 0261 – Monsanto email re: John, Glyphosate Expert Panel Poster at 2015 SRA Annual Meeting (2015)

PTX 0263 – Monsanto email re: Draft of Minutes 1/15/99 Meeting (1999)

PTX 0266 – Monsanto email re: Mutagenicity assessment of Roundup by Parry (1999)

PTX 0267 – Monsanto email re: micro-MN results (2000)

PTX 0271 – Donna Farmer Product Safety Center Toxicology Goals (2004)

PTX 0288 – Monsanto Email re: Glyphosate Overview (2015)

PTX 0289 – Monsanto Email re: CA and Glyphosate (2015)

PTX 0290 – Monsanto Email re: “overrun by liberals and morons…sort of like a zombie movie” (2015)

PTX 0291 – Steven Gould: Cost on CA Municipalities Markets

PTX 0299 – Monsanto Email re: Tools to help you address local concerns about IARC and litigation claims with glyphosate (2015)

PTX 0304 – Monsanto IARC Media Training (2015)

PTX 0305 – Monsanto email re: Roundup article in Fremantle Herald (2009)

PTX 0443 – Monsanto Manuscript Clearance Form: Global Regulatory (2012)

PTX 0445 – Monsanto Email re: Genotox Review; your approval requested! (2012)

PTX 0537 – EPA Mouse Oncogenicity Study (1985)

PTX 0591 – EPA Consensus Review of Glyphosate (1985)

PTX 1020 – Demo 2: Mice Studies | Tumors Chart

PTX 1021 – Demo 3: Rat Studies | Tumors Chart

PTX 1035 – Dr. Neugut PowerPoint Presentation

PTX 1043 – Glyphosate’s Rise to the Top — EPA Rankings of the Top Pesticides by Year in the U.S. Agricultural Sector, 1987-2001

PTX 0513 – Monsanto email re: Beyond-Pesticides Article (2008)

PTX 0556 – Monsanto Email re: NTP will be Evaluating Glyphosate now! (2016)

Day 14: 7/30/18

Dr. Aaron Blair Exhibits

PTX 0165 – CV for Dr. Aaron Blair

PTX 0166 – IARC Preamble

PTX 0167 – IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans VOLUME 112: List of Participants

PTX 0168 – An Evaluation Of Glyphosate Use And The Risks Of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Major Histological Sub-Types In The North American Pooled Project (2015)

PTX 0169 – IARC Glyphosate Monograph (2015)

PTX 0173 – IARC Monographs: 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans (2015)

PTX 0664 – Increased Cancer Burden Among Pesticide Applicators and Others Due to Pesticide Exposure (2013)

DX 2035 – DRAFT Lymphoma risk and pesticide use in the Agricultural Health Study (2013)

DX 2036 – DRAFT Risk of total and cell specific non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and pesticide use in the Agricultural Health Study (2013)

DX 2333 – Blair Email Chain (2014)

DX 2336 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2337 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2339 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2360 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2374 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2375 – Blair Email Chain (2014)

DX 2379 – Blair Email Chain (2014)

DX 2419 – Blair Email Chain (2016)

DX 2424 – Blair Email Chain (2016)

DX 2851 – 2015 PowerPoint Presentation: Occupational Cancer Research Center – An Evaluation of Glyphosate Use and the Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Major Histological Sub-Types in the North American Pooled Project

Dr. Matthew Ross Exhibits

PTX 0293 – Differences in Carcinogenic Evaluation of Glyphosate Between IARC and EFSA (Portier, 2016)

DX 2412 – Ross Email Chain (2015)

DX 2413 – Ross Email Chain (2015)

DX 2416 – Ross Email Chain (2015)

DX 2580 – 3/6/2015: Plenary General Remarks

DX 2635 – IARC Preamble

Day 15: 7/31/18

PTX 0293 – Differences in Carcinogenic Evaluation of Glyphosate Between IARC and EFSA (Portier, 2016)

PTX 0681 – Patterns of Pesticide Use among Farmers: Implications for Epidemiologic Research; Blair & Zahm (1993)

PTX 0682 – Methodological Issues Regarding Confounding and Exposure Misclassification in Epidemiological Studies of Occupational Exposures; Blair, et al. (2007)

PTX 0709 – Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study; De Roos et al. (2005)

PTX 0710 – Integrative Assessment of Multiple Pesticides as Risk Factors for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Among Men, De Roos (2003)

PTX 0777 – Exposure to Pesticides as Risk Factor for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Hairy Cell Leukemia: Pooled Analysis of Two Swedish Case-Control Studies

PTX 0778 – A Case-Control Study of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides; Hardell, Eriksson (1999)

PTX 0818 – Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Specific Pesticide Exposures in Men: Cross-Canada Study of Pesticides and Health (2001)

DX 2052 – Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study (2017)

DX 2191 – Cancer Incidence among Glyphosate-Exposed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study; De Roos, et al. (2005)

DX 2193 – Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among men; De Roos, et al. (2003)

DX 2333 – Blair Email Chain (2014)

DX 2336 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2337 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2339 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2360 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2374 – Blair Email Chain (2015)

DX 2375 – Blair Email Chain (2014)

DX 2412 – Ross Email Chain (2015)

DX 2413 – Ross Email Chain (2015)

DX 2416 – Ross Email Chain (2015)

DX 2419 – Blair Email Chain (2016)

DX 2424 – Blair Email Chain (2016)

DX 2505 – Pesticide exposure as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma histopathological subgroup analysis; Eriksson, Hardell, et al. (2008)

DX 2580 – 3/6/2015: Plenary General Remarks

DX 2584 – Exposure to Pesticides as Risk Factor for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Hairy Cell Leukemia: Pooled Analysis of Two Swedish Case-control Studies; Hardell, et al. (2002)

DX 2598 – Using multiple imputation to assign pesticide use for non-responders in the follow-up questionnaire in the Agricultural Health Study; Heltshe, et al. (2012)

DX 2779 – Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and Specific Pesticide Exposures in Men: Cross-Canada Study of Pesticides and Health; McDuffie, et al. (2001)

DX 2867 – An Evaluation of Glyphosate Use and the Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Major Histological Sub-Types in the North American Pooled Project, PowerPoint Presentation (2015)

Day 16: 8/2/18

PTX 0762 – FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting Minutes and Final Report: EPA’s Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate, 2017

PTX 0765 – Studies on glyphosate-induced carcinogenicity in mouse skin: A proteomic approach; George, et. al (2009)

PTX 1020 – Demo 2: Mice Studies | Tumors Chart

PTX 1021 – Demo 3: Rat Studies | Tumors Chart

PTX 1062 – OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals: Carcinogenicity Studies (2018)

PTX 1063 – Spontaneous Neoplastic Lesions in the CrI:CD-1(ICR) Mouse in Control Groups from 18 Month to 2 year Studies (2005)

DX 2071 – CLH report Proposal for Harmonised Classification and Labelling: Glyphosate (2008)

DX 2481 – Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential | EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (2016)

DX 2486 – Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (2017)

DX 2489 – EPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision: Glyphosate (1993)

DX 2552 – Spontaneous Neoplastic Lesions in the CrI:CD-I (ICR)BR Mouse (2000)

DX 2570 – Critical Reviews in Toxicology: Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies (2015)

DX 2865 – OECD Guideline for the Testing of Chemicals: Combined Chronic Toxicity Carcinogenicity Studies (2009)

DX 3114 – Summary Histopathology Data for 18 Month Control Study Safepharm Laboratories Internal Project 0041-0216 (2008)

Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Court Documents

Order on Deposition Designations and Certain Proposed Jury Instructions(23 pages) (5.17.18) – Judge rules plaintiffs can present punitive damages in CA State Court case DEWAYNE JOHNSON vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL. Deposition designations start on page 17. Rulings are in limine and so subject to review by trial judge as the trial progresses.

Order on (1) Monsanto’s Omnibus Sargon Motion; (2) Monsanto’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (3) Plaintiff’s Omnibus Sargon Motion; (4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication (48 pages) (5.17.18) – Judge issues ruling in CA State Court case DEWAYNE JOHNSON vs. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL.
Monsanto’s Omnibus Sargon Motion: The judge ruled to exclude Dr. Portier’s pooling analysis and any conclusions that depend on it, Dr. Sawyer’s water permeability test and cancer slope opinions, certain testimony from Dr. Benbrook and Dr. Mills’ opinion as to total lost income. Otherwise motion was denied.

1. Monsanto’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Adjudication: The motions were denied.

1. Plaintiff’s Omnibus Sargon Motion: The judge ruled to exclude Dr. Rider’s opinion that the epidemiological evidence precludes the conclusion that there is a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Dr. Kuzel’s mycosis fungoides latency opinion, although Dr. Kuzel may opine generally as to latency for cancers. Otherwise the motion is denied.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication: The motion was granted.

Complaint Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Co. (50 pages) (1.28.16)

Johnson vs Monsanto Trial News

ABC News 7 San Francisco – Opening arguments begin in lawsuit over Roundup weed killer

The Guardian – Monsanto ‘bullied scientists’ and hid weedkiller cancer risk, lawyer tells court

US Right to Know Carey Gillam Blog: First Monsanto Roundup Cancer Trial Jury Selection

Courthouse News – Trial Begins Over Claim That Roundup Causes Cancer

KPIX CBS News TV – Trial Begins Seeking To Prove Monsanto’s Roundup Caused Man’s Cancer

Glyphosate Girl – Blog about the trial

• Day 3 – The Doctor is In
• Day 4 – Well Played, Dr. Portier
• Day 5 – Bueller, Bueller
• Day 6 – Who Me? Couldn’t Be.
• Day 7 – Weighing Sh!t with a Gold Scale
• Day 8 – Not Drinking the Kool Aid
• Day 9 – “Cide” Means Kill
• Day 10 – So Unbelievably Misleading, It Makes Me Dizzy
• Day 11 – The “Incredible Feces Error”
• Day 12 – Liberal Morons Who Don’t Want Cancer
  Day 13 – Non-Suits and No-Suits
• Day 14 – Teacher Appreciation Day
• Day 15 – The EPA Ain’t the Ten Commandments
• Day 16 – What Hypothetical? Mr. Johnson is the Hypothetical!!

CBS News – Monsanto’s Roundup goes to first trial in giant legal battle – CBS News

Food Integrity Now – Trial of The Century: Johnson v. Monsanto

ABC7 Society – Man Dying of Cancer Takes the Stand Against Monsanto

Australia Broadcasting Corp Radio – Victorian Country Hour for Wednesday 11th July 2018

Politico EU – The man who haunts Europe’s food safety watchdog

Courthouse News – Judge Culls Cancer Expert’s Testimony in Roundup Trial

Courthouse News – Monsanto Lawyer Clashes With Cancer Expert in Roundup Trial

Courthouse News – Yelling Breaks Out During Roundup Cancer Link Trial

Organic Consumers Association

• Plaintiff Testifies in Landmark Monsanto Roundup Trial
• Monsanto Trial: Two Days Closer to a Verdict
• Monsanto Trial: Toxicologist Explains to Jury How Monsanto Colluded With EPA
• Ed Begley, Jr. Attends Monsanto Trial
• Plaintiff’s Final Live Witness Testifies in Monsanto Trial
• Monsanto’s Herbicide Expert Has Bad Day in Court
• Neil Young and Daryl Hannah at Monsanto Roundup Trial
• Monsanto Pays Harvard Wizard $100k to Perform Statistical Magic Show for Jury

FigaroLive – Glyphosate: “Monsanto should have prevented risks”

The Daily Coin – Monsanto Trial: Toxicologist Explains to Jury How Monsanto Colluded With EPA

ABC7 –  Case against Monsanto over Roundup, Ranger Pro goes to jury

Source:  Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman

See other resources on glyphosate/Roundup on the Beyond Pesticides website:
Glyphosate: Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management
Glyphosate/Roundup Factsheet
“Global Glyphosate Study” Finds Health Impacts at Levels Regulators Consider Acceptable
Court Affirms Listing Glyphosate as Probable Carcinogen
Action: Glyphosate/Roundup Must Be Removed from the Market
Federal Bill Benefits Monsanto/Bayer, Overriding Labeling of Roundup/Glyphosate as a Carcinogen under California Law
Consumers Sue Monsanto for Misleading Labeling of Roundup …
Amount of Monsanto’s Glyphosate/Roundup in Human Body …
Roundup Damages Earthworms and Soil Biota, Contributes to Nutrient Pollution
Roundup Linked to Animal Shape Changes

See over 200 articles and actions on glyphosate/Roundup and Monsanto on Beyond Pesticides’ website.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 10, 2018) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must ban a widely used organophosphate pesticide linked to brain damage in children, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday. The appellate court ordered EPA to finalize its proposed ban on chlorpyrifos, produced by DowDupont, based on undisputed findings that the pesticide is unsafe for public health, and particularly harmful to children and farmworkers. The ruling comes in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of labor and health organizations, represented by Earthjustice.

In the absence of EPA action, states have started to stand up. In May, the state legislature in  Hawaii passed legislation, which took effect in May, to become the first state to ban the chemical. On July 30, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released its scientific assessment concluding that the organophosphate insecticide, chlorpyrifos, should be listed as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) in the state based on evidence of its neurological effects and exposure risks of concern. Legislation is also pending in Congress to ban chlorpyrifos and similar pesticides nationwide.

Chlorpyrifos is a dangerous nerve agent pesticide that can damage the developing brains of 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. It is also acutely toxic to farmworkers — routinely sickening workers and sending them to the hospital.

Chlorpyirifos was first developed by the Nazis for chemical warfare but later repurposed for agriculture. It is widely used on apples, oranges, broccoli, and dozens of other crops. It’s been banned from home use for about two decades, as it is too toxic to children.

The court ruling details EPA’s long, illegal delay in acting to ban chlorpyrifos, even after the science clearly showed the harm and risks to children’s health.  The court explained that enough was enough: “If Congress’s statutory mandates are to mean anything, the time has come to put a stop to this patent evasion.”

The court ruling comes more than a year after former EPA boss Scott Pruitt reversed EPA’s own proposal to ban this pesticide. That decision came weeks after Pruitt met with the head of Dow Chemical, which is the largest manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, selling it under the name of Lorsban. Mr. Pruitt then falsely claimed the science is “unresolved” and decided EPA would study the issue until 2022.

A decade ago, Earthjustice and partners began legal action to protect children, farmworkers, and rural communities from chlorpyrifos. While families across the country are at risk of dangerous exposure through food, farmworkers and children living in rural Latino communities face disproportionate risk. Chlorpyrifos is unsafe for farmworkers even with the most protective safety gear. In addition, their children risk exposure at home, as chemicals can linger on work clothes. Moreover, anyone living downwind of farms risks exposure when the wind carries the toxic spray into schools and homes.

See Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides and You article Widely Used Pesticide in Food Production Damages Children’s Brains: EPA science on chlorpyrifos ignored as agency reverses decision to stop insecticide’s agricultural use. Want to protect farmworkers and your family, join the campaign to advance organic; see Beyond Pesticides’ organic webpage and eat with a conscience.

Source: Earthjustice press release; NRDC press release

(Beyond Pesticides, August 9, 2018) Last week, the Massachusetts legislature failed to pass legislation that would have restricted the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the state in order to protect sensitive pollinators, but advocates vow to campaign for a victory in the next legislative session. H. 4041, would have restricted neonicotinoid uses to certified applicators only. Massachusetts beekeepers lost 65 percent of honey bee hives this year, a rate 25 percent higher than the national average.

H. 4041, An Act to Protect Massachusetts Pollinators, introduced in 2017, failed to make it to the floor before the end of the legislative session, which ended July 31. The bill gained the support of more than 100 Massachusetts scientists and academics who sent a letter to the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture in support. Over 180 scientists, businesses, beekeepers, farmers, and conservationists formally endorsed this bill to restrict neonicotinoid use to licensed applicators. The Massachusetts County Beekeepers Association worked to organize an extensive grassroots advocacy movement in support of the bill.

H.4041 would have placed “common-sense” restrictions on unlicensed use of neonicotinoids. It would require neonicotinoids to be used by licensed or certified applicators, and would also limit the use of the pesticide during the blooming season to agricultural and horticultural uses only. The bill also had provisions for neonic education and training. While this may not have necessarily reduced uses in agricultural settings, over-the-counter residential uses would have been impacted.

While H.4041 never made it to a vote, advocates in the state are ready to take up the measure during the next legislative session. George Krusen, a beekeeper from Boxborough, noted the attention the bill got. And while he said he realized the volume of work that needed to be done before the end of the legislative session, he and others were “disappointed” the bill didn’t make it to the floor.

Maryland became the first state in the nation to take action to protect pollinators by passing the Pollinator Protection Act. The bill prohibits consumers from buying pesticide products containing neonicotinoids starting in 2018. Maryland also took action to protect pollinators found in designated state pollinator habitat by passing SB 386/HB 830, Pollinator Habitat Plans- Plan Contents- Requirements and Prohibition, which will require pollinator habitat plans developed by any state agency to be as protective of pollinators as the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s managed pollinator protection plan requires. Connecticut has also unanimously passed a wide-ranging bill, An Act Concerning Pollinator Health, aimed at protecting declining pollinator populations from neonicotinoids.

Studies have found neonicotinoids to be associated with altered feeding behaviors and reduced egg development in bumblebee queens, as well as the inhibition of pollination skills among bumblebee workers, the loss of bumblebees’ characteristic “buzz” pollination technique, and reductions in overall colony size. A recent UK study finds bees living in suburban habitats are being exposed to high levels of neonicotinoid pesticides, highlighting the need for urban and suburban gardeners to forgo the use of these pesticides in favor of more holistic, pesticide-free approaches. For more, visit the What the Science Shows page.

Despite the mounting scientific evidence, there is no apparent indication that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will ban the use of these chemicals. This, in spite of recent action taken in the European Union which instituted an EU-wide moratorium in 2013 on the use of thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid on bee-attractive flowering crops, such as oilseed rape, and earlier this year, expanded the ban to include all field crops in 2019. According to the European Commission, protection of bees is an important issue, since it concerns biodiversity, food production, and the environment.

Choosing organically cultured plants and organic foods contributes to the transition away from bee-killing neonicotinoids and other pesticides. Beyond Pesticides offers helpful guidance on companies and organizations that sell organic seeds and plants to the general public. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs, as well as living plants and seedlings. See Beyond Pesticides’ BeeProtective program for more information on science, policy, and advocacy. Watch and share the video Seeds that Poison for a short and concise explanation of the threat to pollinators and the solution.

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

Source: Friends of the Earth

(Beyond Pesticides, August 8, 2018) On July 30, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released its scientific assessment concluding that the organophosphate insecticide, chlorpyrifos, should be listed as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) in the state based on evidence of its neurological effects and exposure risks of concern. This comes after the 2017 decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reversed its decision to ban the dangerous chemical after intervention by its manufacturer.

Decades of scientific data show that chlorpyrifos damages fetal brains and produces cognitive and behavioral dysfunctions, particularly in utero and in children. Even at low levels of exposure chlorpyrifos can impact the developing fetus in pregnant women resulting in impaired learning, change in brain functions, and alter thyroid levels of children into adulthood. A study conducted by the Columbia University Center for Children’s Environmental Health (CCCEH) found that chlorpyrifos in umbilical cord blood samples corresponded with a decrease in the psychomotor and mental development in three-year olds. Additional data collected by CCCEH researchers demonstrated that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos experience developmental delays, attention deficit, hyperactivity, as well as other pervasive developmental disorders. But despite this, and the advice of the agency’s own scientists, EPA, under the direction of former Administrator Scott Pruitt, reversed the agency’s proposal to ban the chemical.

A California review of chlorpyrifos had been on hold for many years pending the proposed federal ban. Chlorpyrifos entered the state’s formal evaluation process to determine whether the chemical should be listed as a pesticide TAC, and a first draft was published in August 2017. A subsequent revision was published in December 2017, which was reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants. Now, this 2018 final TAC evaluation reflects the scientific review panel’s recommendation to designate chlorpyrifos a TAC, joining it to a list of 46 other chemicals including a number of fumigant pesticides. DPR now has ten working days to initiate the regulatory process formalizing the Toxic Air Contaminant designation. Further, the panel recommends DPR evaluate and identify the developmental neurotoxicity effects as the critical endpoint for the chlorpyrifos risk assessment.

According to the assessment, “chlorpyrifos meets the criteria of TAC designation based on either the developmental neurotoxicity endpoint or the AChE inhibition endpoint, even without the additional 10x uncertainty factor necessary to account for the fact that the developmental neurotoxicity effects occur at a lower level than AChE inhibition.” As defined in California, a TAC is “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.”

In light of gross federal inaction on this highly neurotoxic pesticide, Hawai’i became the first state in the nation to take a stand and ban chlorpyrifos. Governor David Ige signed SB3095 into law, in light of the unanimous support it received from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The statewide prohibition of chlorpyrifos will take effect beginning in January 2019. This legislative action marks the first time that any state in the country has passed an outright ban on the highly toxic pesticide. Hawai’i’s law contains a caveat that allows the state’s Department of Agriculture (DOA) to grant special permits for companies that argue that they need more time to phase-out chlorpyrifos, but that exemption will end at the close of 2022. Lawmakers in New Jersey and Maryland have recently tried unsuccessfully to pass similar ban.

Now, advocates in California are urging the state to ban the chemical. According to Pesticide Action Network, DPR has the authority to halt exposures immediately by suspending use in California while formal assessment of control options are considered. However, DPR may follow the timeline under the TAC regulations that allow two years to decide how to mitigate the neurological risks. Almost a million pounds continue to be used on California’s food crops each year, exposing thousands of children and pregnant women to a chemical that permanently damages the developing brain.

In Congress, U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced a bill that would ban the use of chlorpyrifos. The Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act, S. 1624, came one week after an appeals court refused to require EPA to make a decision over whether to ban the chemical.

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

Source: PAN; AgPro Farm Journal

(Beyond Pesticides, August 7, 2018) At the same time that a new analysis by California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) finds current neonicotinoid uses in the state expose bees to residue levels known to cause harm, the Trump administration has reversed a 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) decision to ban neonicotinoids on National Wildlife Refuges. In 2014, newly passed state legislation required DPR to study the impacts of neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and dinotefuran) and adopt control measures to protect sensitive pollinator health within two years.

In its report, released last month, DPR finds the highest risk to bees is posed by use of two neonicotinoids, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, on cereal grains like corn, wheat, rice, and barley. The seeds of these crops are typically coated with neonicotinoids before planting, where residues persist in the pollen and nectar. Although these findings are not surprising and have been documented in the scientific literature, California’s analysis indicates neonicotinoids can cause much broader harm, including to pollinators commonly found on many types of vegetables, cereal grains, tree nuts, fruits and tobacco.

Shortly after a decision in the Pacific Region, FWS announced that all National Wildlife Refuges would join in the phase-out of neonics (while also phasing out genetically engineered crops) by January 2016. “We have determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can potentially affect a broad spectrum of non-target species is not consistent with Service policy. We make this decision based on a precautionary approach to our wildlife management practices and not on agricultural practices.” Given the widespread use of risk-benefit analyses from other government agencies, FWS’ appeal to a precautionary approach sets a positive, refreshing tone for U.S. federal agencies. The news from FWS came partially in response to the President Obama’s executive order to evaluate what federal agencies are doing to protect pollinators, and after Beyond Pesticides, along with Center for Food Safety and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, conducted a nearly decade-long legal campaign urging FWS to prohibit genetically engineered crops, and, more recently, neonics in National Wildlife Refuges. This move was not only intended to protect honey bees that have suffered average losses above 30% since 2006, but also the federally threatened and endangered pollinators that live in National Wildlife Refuges.

According to DPR, pesticide use data from across the state between 2007 and 2016 show that the use of neonicotinoids (imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and dinotefuran) increased by 69.6%, while organophosphate and carbamate use decreased by 41.5% and 20.9%, respectively.  In response to growing public concern over pollinator decline, DPR placed pesticide products containing imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and dinotefuran, into reevaluation on February 2009 to assess the magnitude of their residues in the pollen and nectar of agricultural crops and the corresponding levels of risk to honey bee colonies. The reevaluation covered 50 manufacturers and 282 pesticide products with formulations or applications likely to move into plants that bloom or serve as a foraging source for honey bees and other pollinators. But progress on this review stalled. Then in 2014, the legislature adopted AB 1789 (Chapter 578, Statutes of 2014), requiring DPR to issue a determination with respect to its reevaluation of neonicotinoids by July 1, 2018, and adopt control measures necessary to protect pollinator health within two years after making the determination.

According to the report, crops considered to present a risk at maximum application levels include fruiting vegetables (e.g., cucumbers, tomatoes), berries, citrus, and tree nuts. These results are similar to results published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its assessment. Now DPR will have to consider ways to minimize risks to bees. DPR notes that mitigation measures could include modifying application rates or the times at which applications may occur. Earlier this year, California announced that it would no longer consider any applications by pesticide companies that would expand the use of bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides in the state.

California leads the nation in its agricultural production which includes more than 400 commodities representing over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts. Many of these agricultural commodities rely on pollination by bees for optimal production. Action is therefore needed in the state to ban neonicotinoid uses.

EPA is currently reviewing public comments on its preliminary ecological and human health risk assessments for the neonicotinoids clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran, and a preliminary ecological risk assessment for the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. In addition to high risks to bees, EPA’s assessments find deadly impacts to birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, poisoned insect prey, and contaminated grasses. Researchers have found that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction. A study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers found neonicotinoids widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that harm aquatic insects, and potentially the aquatic food web—the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Previous studies have indeed found neonicotinoids to be associated with altered feeding behaviors and reduced egg development in bumblebee queens, as well as the inhibition of pollination skills among bumblebee workers, the loss of bumblebees’ characteristic “buzz” pollination technique, and reductions in overall colony size. For more, visit the What the Science Shows page.

Despite the mounting scientific evidence, there is no apparent indication that EPA will ban the use of these chemicals. This, in spite of recent action taken in the European Union (EU), which instituted an EU-wide moratorium in 2013 on the use of thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid on bee-attractive flowering crops, such as oilseed rape. The EU earlier this year expanded the ban to include all field crops in 2019. According to the European Commission, protection of bees is an important issue, since it concerns biodiversity, food production, and the environment.

And even though agricultural restrictions on neonicotinoids can go a long way to reduce acute exposures to pollinators, a recent UK study finds bees living in suburban habitats are being exposed to high levels of neonicotinoid pesticides, highlighting the need for urban and suburban gardeners to forgo the use of these pesticides in favor of more holistic, pesticide-free approaches.

Take Action: Urge your U.S. Representative to support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. With managed honey bee losses remaining at unsustainable levels and many wild pollinators at risk of extinction, it’s time, for the future of food and our environment, for the U.S. to finally protect pollinators.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity; California Neonicotinoid Risk Determination, California Department of Pesticide Regulation; The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, August 6, 2018)  Say “No” to Trump’s Supreme Court Pick. President Donald Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, would be disastrous for workers, public health, and our environment. Judge Kavanaugh’s record shows he consistently puts the interests of big business and polluters over those of public health and the environment.

Tell your Senators to vote NO on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

As a circuit court judge, Kavanaugh gutted requirements for endangered species recovery and overturned efforts to protect critical habitat. He has opposed workers’ rights. He has consistently tried to undermine EPA safeguards to protect clean air and our climate. His decisions wrongfully delayed rules to protect the air we breathe — rules that the EPA estimated would prevent thousands of premature deaths.

The Center for Biological Diversity says, “It’s not an exaggeration to state that Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy will kill Americans and cause wildlife extinctions.” In short, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, special interests will be in the driver’s seat as the court strips away 40 years of environmental progress.

Tell your Senators to vote NO on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Letter:

President Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, would be disastrous for workers, public health, and our environment. I urge you to vote against his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions have consistently put the priorities of polluters, special interests, and corporations ahead of the health of ordinary Americans and our environment.

Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination is not popular among the U.S. public. Three polls taken in the days after President Trump’s announcement show him to be “one of the most unpopular Supreme Court nominees in recent history.” The polls, conducted by Fox News, Gallup, and the Pew Research Center, show that Kavanaugh has a “net confirmation” rating lower than any nominee in recent history, with the notable exceptions of Harriet Miers and Robert Bork — neither of whom went on to be confirmed.

The policies Brett Kavanaugh champions are even less popular. There is no vast constituency for his views. The prospect of a transformed Supreme Court makes the stakes and the profile of this confirmation vote inherently much higher than those of others in recent memory. The American people deserve a nominee who is much less radical in his views.

 As a circuit court judge, he gutted the requirements for recovery planning for endangered species and overturned efforts to protect critical habitat. He has consistently tried to undermine EPA safeguards to protect clean air and our climate. He has opposed workers’ rights.

 Brett Kavanaugh is a radical — and one who is likely to wield extraordinary power to codify into law priorities that would be considered unrealistic and extreme by the majority of Americans. He poses a clear and present danger to the values I hold dear. Voting for him would be the wrong decision for our country.

 I urge you to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, August 3, 2018) Documents made public in late July show that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) let Monsanto write its own rules after farmers and the public raised red flags over crop damage and contamination caused by its new line of dicamba herbicides. As part of the discovery process initiated by a lawsuit against EPA’s approval of its new dicamba product, called “XtendiMax with Vapor Grip Technology,” emails released (start at p. 147) show Monsanto line-editing regulations first proposed by EPA. This is only the latest in a long string of instances where EPA has worked hand in glove with the agrichemical industry it is charged with overseeing.

When the new regulations were released, Beyond Pesticides’ noted broad criticism that the changes will not adequately address the damage caused by this new herbicide. The newest product in the agrichemical industry’s predictable trajectory toward increasingly toxic cropping systems, XtendiMax was developed to be sprayed on corn and soy genetically engineered to tolerate the herbicide. As its flagship Roundup Ready products have failed to control resistant weeds in farm fields throughout the U.S., Monsanto and others in the agrichemical industry continue to reach back towards older, more toxic pesticides to maintain their profits and market share.

However, shortly after its release, reports streamed into state agriculture agencies indicating that drift from the product was damaging nearby farms. In many agricultural communities, use of this product has pitted neighbor against neighbor. A National Public Radio report in October indicated that a dispute between two individuals over dicamba drift led to the murder of one Arkansas farmer. In June 2017, University of Arkansas’ agricultural research station had over 100 acres of soybeans ruined from nearby dicamba use. And late last month, a Kansas farmer filed a legal complaint against Monsanto alleging that the company knew its dicamba herbicide would harm non-target crops, but marketed and sold the product anyway.

In the emails, top-level staff at EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs provided drafts of proposed terms and conditions to lawyer Phillip Perry, husband of Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, of the firm Latham and Watkins, representing Monsanto. The documents were returned by Mr. Perry with specific edits. Mr. Perry wrote, “We accepted a number of the proposed changes, but did not incorporate all the iterative communications with retailers proposed in the last draft. In particular, we are concerned that those iterative communications might require a potentially significant period of time to complete.” EPA allowed Monsanto to rewrite that section on guidance to retailers.

A subsequent email announcing the final draft, sent by EPA’s Reuben Baris, acting chief of EPA’s Herbicide Branch, to Monsanto lawyer Thomas Marvin read, “Like I said, no surprises.”

In EPA’s original announcement of the new regulations, the agency quoted former Administrator Scott Pruitt as saying, “Today’s actions are the result of intensive, collaborative efforts, working side by side with the states and university scientists from across the nation who have first-hand knowledge of the problem and workable solutions.” However, from the documents released, it is evident that EPA’s collaboration focused primarily with industry, rather than states and university scientists.

In the absence of any leadership from EPA, states have been forced to take measures to protect their agricultural economy. Restrictions are in place or being considered in a number of states, including North Dakota and Minnesota. Missouri has proposed a rule restricting dicamba and 2,4-D during the growing season, and Arkansas has implemented the toughest restrictions on dicamba in the U.S. after a lawsuit by Monsanto failed to stop it from going forward.

While the Monsanto moniker is likely on the way out as it merges with Bayer (Bayer has indicated it will drop the name Monsanto entirely when the deal is complete), there is no doubt that the agrichemical industry will seek to maintain its cozy relationship and revolving door with EPA regulators.  As industry continues to write its own rules for its toxic cropping systems, fruit and vegetable growers, and organic farmers will likewise suffer as drift and contamination increases alongside GE acres planted. Help decrease demand for GE products by purchasing organic whenever possible. Organic certification means toxic synthetic herbicides like dicamba and GE materials are never allowed within products that sport the label. By buying organic you support environmentally sustainable organic farms and an increase in organic acreage.

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

Source: Investigate Midwest

(Beyond Pesticides, August 2, 2018) Weed scientists from the University of Missouri (UM) have just published evidence of a water hemp population resistant to six different herbicides. The study is sending shock waves throughout the chemical-intensive agricultural community, particularly in light of the plant’s resistance to 2,4-D. In its reporting on the study, KTIC Rural Radio begged the question, “If we’re already seeing 2,4-D resistance now, what will happen when use of the herbicide becomes even more commonplace?”

KTIC is referring to the impending commercialization of products like Enlist Duo, developed by DowDupont in an attempt to address widespread weed resistance to glyphosate. Enlist Duo is an herbicide containing both glyphosate and 2,4-D, and is intended to be sprayed only on crops genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate exposure to both chemicals. However, with growing reports like this, many farmers may begin to rethink their approach.

In 2014, a farmer contacted UM indicating that water hemp was not responding to 2,4-D during a regular ‘burndown’ the farmer conducted before planting a new crop. (Chemical-intensive farmers will often use a synthetic herbicide to clear their field for new plantings.) The farmer had also used other herbicides, fomesafen and glyphosate, in this process and similarly saw no control. Researchers conducted a series of field and dose-response experiments to determine what chemicals the plants were resistant to and to what degree.

Field data showed that typical 2,4-D application rates controlled between 26% and 77% of water hemp in 2015 but only 15% to 55% in 2016. Based on dose-response experiments researchers determined that the population they were studying was 3 times more resistant to 2,4-D than a susceptible population. For the other herbicides tested, including atrazine, fomesafen, glyphosate, and mesotrione, compared to the susceptible population of water hemp studied, was  7,7,22, and 14 times more resistant, respectively. Researchers were unable to determine the degree of resistance to the herbicide chlorimuron, but the product only provided 7% control of water hemp in field studies.

The only two herbicides the water hemp population was not resistant to were dicamba and glufosinate. These two pesticides happen to be the products that make up Bayer’s Liberty Link GE cropping system. The use of dicamba-based products has resulted in widespread nontarget damage throughout the Midwest, making them a poor alternative choice for farmers.

Researchers note that water hemp is the biggest weed issue in corn and soybean fields throughout the Midwest. It has the ability to produce upwards of 1,000,000 seeds during a growing season, can germinate quickly and early, and competes aggressively with row crops, resulting in significantly reduced yields.

While the pesticide industry argues that resistance can be managed by stacking pesticides, planting GE-free refuges, and other techniques, the fact remains that resistance is a predictable aspect of a system reliant on toxic chemicals to manage pests. Rather than recommend switching to dicamba or another herbicide, researchers are suggesting that farmers adopt a more diversified method of weed management, including the use of cultural, mechanical, and biological approaches.

Beyond Pesticides encourages readers to support farming systems already following these recommendations by purchasing organic whenever possible. Organic agriculture never allows the use of toxic pesticides and GE crops, and requires that farmers have an organic systems plan that includes how they will manage weed and other pest issues if or when they arise. For more information on resistance in GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ program page.

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

Source: KTIC, Weed Science

(Beyond Pesticides, August 1, 2018) According to new research from the University of Sussex, bees living in suburban habitats are still being exposed to high levels of neonicotinoid pesticides. Even though there is a European Union (EU) ban on these chemicals, the ban focuses on agricultural and not residential applications. The study’s authors are urging gardeners to forgo the use of these pesticides in favor of more holistic, pesticide-free approaches.

The authors of the study say it is the first of its kind to highlight the risk to bees in urban areas posed by garden use of pesticides. Entitled Monitoring neonicotinoid exposure for bees in rural and peri-urban areas of the UK during the transition from pre- to post-moratorium, the study sampled pollen and nectar from bumblebee colonies in rural and peri-urban habitats in three UK regions–Stirlingshire, Hertfordshire, and Sussex over three years. Sampling began prior to the ban (2013), during the initial implementation when some seed-treated winter-sown oilseed rape was still grown (2014), and following the ban (2015). Honey bee colonies in rural habitats were also sampled to compare species-level differences between bumblebees and honey bees.

Not surprisingly, the researchers find pesticide contamination in more than 50 percent of the samples, with thiamethoxam detected at the highest concentration in honey bee and bumblebee-collected pollen and nectar. For the 2014 sample period, honey bees were exposed to higher levels of neonicotinoids than bumblebees. Imidacloprid and thiacloprid were also found in samples. Check out the Seeds that Poison video.

Results found that, in general, neonicotinoid exposure for rural (typically agricultural areas) bees declined post-ban (2015), but that bees in suburban environments remain at risk of high levels of neonicotinoid exposures. For imidacloprid, the researchers believe that continued contamination could also be due to pet flea treatments, which still often contain this chemical. In addition to pesticide garden products, contaminated ornamental plants sold in garden centers play a key role in spreading neonicotinoids through suburban areas, the researchers note. A previous study, also at the University of Sussex, revealed that 70% of bee-friendly plants sold at a range of garden centers had traces of neonicotinoids. Researchers are now urging suburban gardeners to get rid of their bug sprays immediately in favor of encouraging natural predators like ladybirds or lacewings, and the use of physical methods such as hand-removal of pests, and netting or sticky traps.

“Our findings suggest that the EU’s recent decision to extend the neonicotinoid moratorium to include all field crops is likely to have a positive effect on bees, relieving some of the stress on our already struggling pollinator populations. However, given that bees in suburban gardens appear to remain at risk post-moratorium, further work is needed to understand the sources of neonicotinoid exposure in these areas and to find ways to reduce it. Our study indicates that limiting the public sale and use of neonicotinoid-based bug sprays, which are currently unaffected by the moratorium, is needed if we are to protect bee populations living in and around our towns and cities,” said Beth Nicholls, PhD, postdoctoral research fellow in evolution, behaviour and environment at the University of Sussex and the study’s lead author.

In 2013, the European Commission instituted an EU-wide moratorium on the use of three types of neonicotinoid (thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and imidacloprid) on bee-attractive flowering crops, such as oilseed rape. The ban will be expanded to include all field crops in 2019. According to the European Commission, protection of bees is an important issue, since it concerns biodiversity, food production, and the environment. An EU committee approved the plan to tighten and expand restrictions on the use of the neonicotinoid pesticides, acting upon scientific advice this past February from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to tighten existing restrictions and protect bees, crucial pollinators. EFSA analyzed over 1,500 studies from academia, beekeeper associations, chemical companies, farmer groups, non-governmental organizations, and national regulators, and concluded that neonicotinoids pose risks to honey bees and wild pollinators.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reviewing public comments on its preliminary ecological and human health risk assessments for the neonicotinoids clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran, and a preliminary ecological risk assessment for the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. EPA’s risk assessments find deadly impacts to birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, poisoned insect prey, and contaminated grasses. Researchers have found that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction. A recent study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers found neonicotinoids widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that harm aquatic insects, and potentially the aquatic food web—the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems.

One recent study finds that bumblebee queens that wake up from hibernation to a neonicotinoid-contaminated, monofloral landscape take longer to set up their nest and die-off at higher rates. Previous studies have indeed found neonicotinoids to be associated with altered feeding behaviors and reduced egg development in bumblebee queens, as well as the inhibition of pollination skills among bumblebee workers, the loss of bumblebees’ characteristic “buzz” pollination technique, and reductions in overall colony size. For more, visit the What the Science Shows page.

Take Action: Urge your U.S. Representative to support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. With managed honey bee losses remaining at unsustainable levels and many wild pollinators at risk of extinction, it’s time, for the future of food and our environment, for the U.S. to finally protect pollinators.

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

Source: Science Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, July 31, 2018) P-55, a mountain lion, famous for crossing Southern California’s notorious 101 Freeway, has died of causes biologists suspect are related to rodenticide poisoning, according to the National Park Service (NPS). The radio collar strapped to P-55, aged 3, failed to transmit that the animal has died, and, when biologists found him, his remains were too decomposed to determine the exact cause of death. NPS officials indicate that there are two likely scenarios that lead to the death of a healthy mountain lion: a fight with another male, or poisoning from rodenticides. Although decomposed, officials indicate there were no signs of a struggle where his body was found.

This is the latest incident in Southern California linking rodenticide use to the poisoning of mountain lions. In 2014, it was reported that another mountain lion in the region, P-22, also famous for its propensity to roam near Griffith Park’s Hollywood sign, was nearly killed from mange and poisoning brought on by rodenticide exposure.

Despite policies passed at the state and local level, secondary poisoning of non-target predators by rodenticides still poses a risk to wildlife. In 2014, California Governor Brown signed AB 2657, which banned the use of anticoagulant rodenticides in state parks, wildlife refuges, and conservation land. According to the Bay-area group Raptors are the Solution, nearly 30 communities throughout the state have also adopted policies that stop community-wide use of anticoagulant rodenticides and/or encourage businesses, homeowners, and other residents to not sell or use these products.

Prior to P-55’s death, another mountain lion, P-41, in the Verdugo Mountains, was also found dead. While its body was also too decomposed to determine exact cause of death, lab results detected six pesticides, including both first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in its liver.

Mountain lions can be exposed to rodenticides by eating animals that recently fed on poisoned pellets or bait, such as squirrels, woodrats, or other prey. The effects of these pesticides, which cause blood thinning and prevent blood clotting, can be passed to predators like the mountain lion when they feed on contaminated animals. These chemicals do not kill prey quickly, allowing them to feed on poisoned bait multiple times, meaning their bodies can contain residues many times the lethal dose. Both predators and prey exposed to sublethal doses of rodenticides can become lethargic, are more likely to be hit by cars, and are more susceptible to other diseases.

Help protect wildlife from unnecessary poisoning by stopping the use of rodenticides around your home or business, and encouraging your neighbors to do the same. To address rodents like mice, squirrels, or gophers without toxic chemicals, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage. Residents in California can get active in this issue by working to pass policies restricting rodenticide use. Contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or reach out to local groups like Raptors are the Solution for assistance.

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

Source: National Park Service, Star-Telegram

(Beyond Pesticides, July 30, 2018) In place of open debate, Congressional Republicans have once again used riders in three must-pass funding and authorization bills to remove protection from endangered species. It adds up to a huge attack on an immensely popular law. From wolves and grizzly bears to monarchs and burying beetlehttps://action.beyondpesticides.org/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=26387s, everyone is at risk.

Wolves could lose protection nationwide. Toxic pesticides could be exempt from environmental review. Threatened wildlife could be forced to wait for lifesaving protection while industry gets the green light to destroy our public lands. And that’s just a glimpse of what Congress is trying to get away with.

Tell your U.S. Senators to oppose these attacks on the Endangered Species Act.

Avoiding direct conflict with a law supported by about 83 percent of Americans (including a large majority of conservatives), according to an Ohio State University poll, Congress has launched hundreds of backdoor attempts to gut the Endangered Species Act and sidestep the laws that protect our air, water, and public lands. If passed, they would change which species get protected, how critical habitat is chosen, and whether climate change can be considered a factor at all. The sneak attacks include:

National Defense Authorization Act: The act contains provisions that would undermine the Endangered Species Act. They include two provisions that would wrongfully prohibit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the greater sage grouse and lesser prairie chicken for at least 10 years; one that would prematurely remove protection for American burying beetles; and language targeting vulnerable whales, dolphins, and sea turtles, and robbing them of safeguards under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

2018 Farm Bill: Two versions of the bill must be reconciled in conference committee, but under consideration are provisions that attack some of our nation’s most iconic species, threaten to pollute our waters, and jeopardize our public lands. If enacted into law, critical safeguards protecting our drinking water and wildlife will be dismantled, as requested by the pesticide lobby.

Fiscal Year 2019 Interior and EPA Appropriations Bill: This bill contains a rider that would prematurely remove protection for gray wolves, both in the Great Lakes region and nationwide. This rider also blocks judicial review, impeding every citizen’s right to hold our government accountable when it acts unlawfully. The best way to get a species off the endangered list is to fully fund the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, and allow it to do its job of recovering species. The bill also attacks wildlife refuges, prohibiting the funding of any refuge that limits planting of genetically modified crops. Use of GMOs in our refuges reduces biodiversity and harms native plants and animals.

Tell your U.S. Senators to oppose these attacks on the Endangered Species Act.

Letter to Senators:

Subject: Protect Endangered Species From Sneak Attacks.

I’m asking you to put a stop to the continuous string of back door attacks by Congress on the environment. In particular, you must reject harmful riders in the National Defense Authorization Act, 2018 Farm Bill, and FY19 Interior–EPA Appropriations Bill. Policy riders attacking our environment and imperiled species don’t belong in unrelated must-pass bills and will have devastating consequences if enacted into law.

Specifically, I ask you to be on guard and to vote against any legislation that includes the following provisions:

— National Defense Authorization Act: Provisions within the bill would undermine the Endangered Species Act, which has staved off extinction for 99 percent of the plants and animals under its care and put hundreds on the road to recovery. The bill includes two provisions that would wrongfully prohibit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the greater sage grouse and lesser prairie chicken for at least 10 years; one that would prematurely remove protection for American burying beetles; language targeting vulnerable whales, dolphins, and sea turtles, and robbing them of safeguards under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

— 2018 Farm Bill: Two versions of the bill must be reconciled in conference committee, but under consideration are provisions that attack some of our nation’s most iconic species, threaten to pollute our waters, and jeopardize our public lands. If enacted into law, critical safeguards protecting our drinking water and wildlife will be dismantled, as requested by the pesticide lobby.

— FY19 Interior–EPA Appropriations Bill: This bill contains a rider that would prematurely remove protection for gray wolves, both in the Great Lakes region and nationwide. Legislatively delisting wolves is inappropriate, especially in must-pass bills. This rider also blocks judicial review, impeding every citizen’s right to hold our government accountable when it acts unlawfully. The best way to get a species off the endangered list is to fully fund the implementation of the Endangered Species Act and allow it to do its job of recovering species. The bill also attacks wildlife refuges, prohibiting the funding of any refuge that limits planting of genetically modified crops. Use of GMOs in our refuges reduces biodiversity and harms native plants and animals.

Along with the vast majority of Americans, I understand the interdependence of humans, other species, and natural resources. I am appalled by all the backdoor attempts to undermine our environmental laws. Please do the right thing and vote against any legislation that includes these dangerous provisions.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, July 27, 2018) The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued new guidelines for measures to lower children’s exposures to chemicals in food and food packaging that are tied to health problems such as obesity, metabolic changes, decreased birth weight, and endocrine disrupting effects, including reduced fertility. Exposures to these chemicals–added to food during processing or in food packaging–are disproportionately high among minority and low-income populations, according to the report, especially given inadequate federal regulation and oversight.

The guidelines, issued in both a statement and technical report by the AAP entitled, Food Additives and Child Health, came after the group decided to review and highlight emerging child health concerns related to “the use of colorings, flavorings, and chemicals deliberately added to food during processing (direct food additives) as well as substances in food contact materials.” Food additives, in particular, have been documented to be linked to endocrine disruption and other adverse health effects. According to AAP, “regulation and oversight of many food additives is inadequate because of several key problems in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Current requirements for a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation are insufficient to ensure the safety of food additives and do not contain sufficient protections against conflict of interest. Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have adequate authority to acquire data on chemicals on the market or reassess their safety for human health.”

Infants and children are more vulnerable to chemical exposures, but data about the health effects of food additives on infants and children are limited or missing. AAP identifies as compounds of concern, bisphenols, which are used in the lining of metal cans; phthalates, used in adhesives and plasticizers; nonpersistent pesticides, which have been addressed in a previous AAP policy statement; perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs), which are used in grease-proof paper and paperboard food packaging; and perchlorate, an antistatic agent used for packaging in contact with dry foods with surfaces that do not contain free fat or oil; nitrates and nitrites, and artificial food coloring.

For instance, bisphenol A (BPA) exposure in utero has been associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, and cross-sectional studies have associated BPA with decrements in fetal growth, childhood obesity. Certain phthalates are linked to adverse effects on male fetal genital development, and studies have shown PFCs to contribute to metabolic changes, decreased birth weight, and endocrine disrupting effects including reduced fertility. In 2012, AAP issued a statement of childhood exposures to pesticides recognizing that reducing pesticide exposures in foods may be significant for children. AAP also noted that choosing organic food, which has significantly lower toxic pesticide residues is also beneficial to larger environmental issues, as well as human health impacts like pollution and global climate change.

Specific recommendations to pediatricians and consumers include:

• Prioritize consumption of fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables when possible, and support that effort by developing a list of low-cost sources for fresh fruits and vegetables.
• Avoid processed meats, especially maternal consumption during pregnancy.
• Avoid microwaving food or beverages (including infant formula and pumped human milk) in plastic, if possible.
• Avoid placing plastics in the dishwasher.
• Use alternatives to plastic, such as glass or stainless steel, when possible.
• Look at the recycling code on the bottom of products to find the plastic type, and avoid plastics with recycling codes 3 (phthalates), 6 (styrene), and 7 (bisphenols) unless plastics are labeled as “biobased” or “greenware,” indicating that they are made from corn and do not contain bisphenols.
• Encourage hand-washing before handling foods and/or drinks, and wash all fruits and vegetables that cannot be peeled.

“The good news is there are safe and simple steps people can take right now to limit exposures, and they don’t have to break the bank,” said Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author of the statement and chief of the division of environmental pediatrics at New York University’s School of Medicine. “Avoiding canned food is a great way to reduce your bisphenol exposure in general, and avoiding packaged and processed food is a good way to avoid phthalates exposures,” Dr. Trasande said. He also suggested wrapping foods in wax paper in lieu of plastic wrap.

This far, higher urinary levels of these substances (e.g. BPA) have been inversely associated with family income. Given that obesity is well recognized to be more prevalent among low-income and minority children, disproportionate exposures to these obesogenic chemicals partially explain sociodemographic disparities in health, AAP explains. The group recommends that “substantial improvements” be made to regulate these substances including strengthening or replacing the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) determination process, updating the scientific foundation of the FDA’s safety assessment program, retesting all previously approved chemicals, and labeling direct additives with limited or no toxicity data.

Beyond Pesticides advocates in its program and through its Eating with a Conscience website choosing organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

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

Source: New York Times

(Beyond Pesticides, July 26, 2018) A legal complaint filed by a Kansas farmer claims industry giant, Monsanto, knew its new dicamba-formulated product would harm other crops, but marketed and sold it anyway, damaging thousands of acres of crops. The lawsuit, filed by 4-R Farms based in Corning Kansas, lost over 200 acres of soybeans. This is the latest in a string of lawsuits Monsanto is facing. Farmers in Arkansas, Missouri, and elsewhere have been hit with crop losses as a result of the dicamba damage.

Advocates  and victims of damage argue that Monsanto places profits ahead of possible damage to crops when it markets seeds resistant to a powerful weedkiller before making a less volatile herbicide available. This, according to the lawsuit filed in court. The petition, filed last week, could be the catalyst for a class action lawsuit of Kansas farmers against Monsanto, which faces a growing docket of legal challenges. The lawsuit also names chemical company BASF as a co-defendant. BASF is facing its own mounting pile of lawsuits over dicamba. The lawsuit requests unspecified damages and a trial by a federal jury in Topeka.

Monsanto marketed its new line of dicamba products, Xtend, to go hand in hand with its genetically engineered (GE) seeds made to be resistant to dicamba. The goal was for farmers to treat their fields with dicamba to combat growing Roundup (glyphosate) weed resistance. The GE seeds were available first, without the accompanying dicamba product, and farmers were left to use older formulations. However, dicamba is highly volatile and can drift for miles impacting other nearby crops. The newly formulated pesticide was advertised as less volatile than previous versions. But as crop losses continued for the third straight year, this claim is turning out to be another false promise from Monsanto, as research by weed scientists found that the new product does volatilize enough to cause drift damage. “Defendants understood that such injuries would force farmers to defensively plant Xtend crops in future growing seasons and thereby increase the market,” the lawsuit claims.

“I think now as hard as things are on farmers and producers with tariffs and other difficulties in the markets, any hit they take on what is traditionally their strongest cash crop is particularly hard,” said Lee Cross, the Kansas City, Mo.-based lawyer who filed the lawsuit. The 2018 harvest will reveal the extent of damages both in acres and dollars in Kansas and at the more than 1,300-acre 4-R Farms, according to Mr. Cross.

Dicamba has not impacted Kansas as much as states to the east, like Missouri and Arkansas, where hundreds of complaints led to the states to take action on dicamba’s use. Already, Monsanto is facing a class action lawsuit in eastern Missouri from farmers alleging the volatile chemical damaged their crops.

As of July 7, nearly 600 complaints of dicamba damage have been filed by Arkansas farmers in 23 different counties. In Missouri, as of July 3, there are 123 cases of dicamba injury complaints under investigation and according to the Missouri Soybean Association, “More than 200,000 Missouri soybean acres currently show signs of suspected dicamba damage.” According to the University of Missouri, there are “600 cases being investigated by the state departments of agriculture and approximately 1.1 million acres of soybean estimated with dicamba injury by university weed scientists [in 14 states].”

Nationally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated 3.6 million acres — or about 4 percent of American soybeans — were damaged by dicamba in 2017. The Kansas Department of Agriculture reported it received complaints of dicamba damage from more than 213 farmers last year, according to the lawsuit.

Thus far, farmers across 10 states are suing Monsanto over dicamba damage to their crops. Steven W. Landers, et al v. Monsanto Company was filed on Jan. 26 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division. Kansas City law firm Randles & Splittgerber filed on behalf of Steven and Deloris “Dee” Landers and similarly harmed farmers in 10 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, according to EcoWatch. Farmers seek damages for claims including negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, conspiracy, disgorgement of profits and punitive damages. These cases contend the biotech giant knowingly marketed its Xtend cotton and soybean seeds to farmers without any “safe” herbicide.

Recently, the Justice Department allowed two already large agrichemical corporations, Bayer and Monsanto, to merge, despite strong voices of opposition from grassroots advocates across the country, and investigations by state Attorneys General. Bayer is opting to ditch Monsanto’s name, possibly as soon as late summer, when the acquisition is expected to be completed.

If you are concerned about the use of dicamba-based herbicides in agricultural areas where you live, contact your state department of agriculture and voice your concerns. Find their contact information through Beyond Pesticides’ state pages. For more information about the hazardous associated with GE agriculture, see our program page on genetic engineering.

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

Source: CJOnline; lawsuit

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2018) The Village of Franklin Park has become the third and latest community in the state of Illinois to pass a resolution urging the state legislature to repeal its preemption statute, which prevents localities from passing laws that are stricter than the state’s pesticide law. The victory in Franklin Park comes after the Village of Oak Park and town of Evanston, IL both passed their own preemption repeal resolutions in February 2017. Advocates who pushed for these resolutions, including regional groups Go Green Oak Park and Midwest Pesticide Action Center (MPAC), are hoping Franklin Park’s move is a sign of more local action to come on this critical democratic principle. Meanwhile, Congress is considering a provision in the Farm Bill that will prohibit, or preempt, local municipalities from restricting pesticides in their jurisdictions.

“Illinois beekeepers reported the second highest bee mortality rate in 2015,” said MPAC’s Assistant Director and Communications Manager Ryan Anderson. “MPAC supports local action over state action in these cases where state pesticide regulations do not do enough to protect pollinators, children, and wildlife.”

A 1991 Supreme Court Case, Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, established that federal pesticide law – the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – created a policy floor, rather than ceiling. In other words, the Supreme Court indicated that states and communities were allowed to build stricter laws on top of the federal pesticide law. However, the Court nonetheless permitted states to pass laws that would create a ceiling for local communities within the state. This meant that local communities would be unable to build laws stricter than those the state has already passed. In response to the 1991 case, the pesticide industry went state by state to enact state-level preemption laws that prohibited localities from imposing stricter requirements around pesticide use.

In the case of Illinois, its preemption clause reads (p 15): “The regulation of pesticides by any political subdivision of this State, including home rule units, is specifically prohibited except for counties and municipalities with a population over 2,000,000. The regulation of pesticides under this Act is an exclusive power and function of the State…” This clause preempts all communities in the state save for Chicago and Cook County.

When first learning about preemption, local advocates are often shocked. This is because, in effect, these laws stop any potential for local governments to pass laws that apply to private property. That means the TruGreen truck that’s applied pesticides to homes throughout one’s neighborhood, or the uninformed neighbor constantly overspraying their property, are granted relative immunity to any local law aiming to restrict their hazardous practices.

“Forty three states have been preempted,” said Peggy McGrath, local organizer with Go Green Oak Park. “We truly need to to encourage as many municipalities as possible to adopt this resolution, not only in Illinois but other states as well. Otherwise no state general assembly will listen and amend the law to enable communities to regulate pesticides themselves. We all know corporations are presently winning, yet with no regard to the health effects for all of us, especially our children.”

But, as Franklin Park shows, there are ways local communities can fight back against democratic state preemption laws. First, local governments can establish themselves as models for their residents by passing laws that restrict pesticides applied to local government owned properties. Franklin Park’s integrated pest management policy does a good job of this by restricting highly toxic pesticides, using any toxic pesticides as a last resort, and encouraging alternative methods to manage pests and weeds. Reports indicate Franklin Park does not use pesticides on their local parks or other properties. The community’s sustainability webpage also encourages residents to follow natural lawn care practices, and provides links to helpful resources. After passing a law addressing public property, local governments in Illinois and in any state with pesticide preemption can follow the lead of Franklin Park, Oak Park, and Evanston by passing resolutions urging their state legislature to repeal preemption.

Franklin Park Mayor Barrett Pedersen told the Chicago Tribune of the resolution, “It’s the reason I got involved in public office — sustainability.”

Where there is not pesticide preemption, such as in the state of Maine, localities have shown a strong desire to pass laws that reflect their local values. Nearly 20 communities in Maine have restricted pesticide use on private property in some way, including comprehensive cosmetic pesticide restrictions passed in Ogunquit, South Portland, and earlier this year the most populous City in the state, Portland.

Despite progress at the local level, there are efforts in the 2018 Farm Bill to rewrite the nation’s pesticide law, FIFRA, to federally preempt all localities in the country. Although the House Farm Bill contains this disturbing language, the Senate version does not. Local and national groups are on the alert for this “poison pill” when the legislation goes into conference committee. In other words, advocates say that regardless of advances that may be in the Farm Bill, nothing is worth undermining the local democratic authority to advance sustainable practices and protect the health and environment at the community level.

Take action by contacting your local, state, and federal elected officials about this important issue. Individuals in Illinois can reach out to MPAC’s organizing team, and residents across the country can reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] of 202-543-5450 for assistance in changing their state’s preemption law. And, let your congressional delegation know that it is undemocratic to prohibit local authority to address pesticide issues and federal preemption of local authority in the Farm Bill is unacceptable. Click here to send a message to Congress.

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

Source: Franklin Park Resolution, Chicago Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2018) The White House named Scott Hutchins, PhD, former Dow Chemical Company executive, as Undersecretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Dr. Hutchins is now the third Dow alumnus to be hired by the Trump Administration. As a scientist who oversaw Dow’s pesticide research and development, his appointment, if confirmed, has troubling consequences to USDA’s research programs.

Described as a “global leader of integrated field sciences,” Dr. Hutchins worked at Corteva—the newly created agricultural (pesticide and seed) division of the DowDuPont entity that focuses on “chemical solutions to pest management.” Dr. Hutchins has been with Dow since 1987 and worked in regional research and development management and global development of pesticide products. He is also a former president of the Entomological Society of America, serving in that role in parts of 2006 and 2007, and is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Nebraska.

The lead science position directs the Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (ARS), the Economic Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and sets the agenda for USDA’s research budget. Dow Chemical, now merged with Dupont as DowDupont, contributed over $1million to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Shortly after taking office, the former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met privately with Dow. Weeks later, EPA reversed its decision to ban Dow’s highly neurotoxic pesticide, chlorpyrifos, despite the agency’s own scientists confirming elevated risks to children.

Last year, Sam Clovis was nominated for the position but the former radio host and business professor had no scientific credentials and his nomination was met with significant push-back, especially after he was named as an operative in the Russia scandal. Mr. Clovis eventually withdrew his nomination.

USDA’s ARS oversees research programs in a number of areas including nutrition and food safety, crop production and protection, animal health and natural resources, and the National Organic Program. USDA has typically invested billions of dollars annually on this research. It represents a significant support for the research science community and the discoveries that emerge from this work, as well as for a growing knowledge base to inform decision making and public policy. However, science at USDA has been increasingly undermined by growing industry influence. A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) finds that a myriad of personnel and policy decisions by the Trump administration have been undermining scientific integrity and transparency at the agency, weakening public safety and health protections, and puts agribusiness interests over those of the public, farmers, and rural communities.

Under the current leadership of Secretary, Sonny Perdue, USDA has cozied up with big industry with apparent interest in weakening public health protections. Several agency positions have gone to former industry lobbyists and staff, some of which have needed ethics waivers from the White House to be hired. USDA has attacked the science around EPA’s former proposal to ban chlorpyrifos, attacked the World Health Organization’s guidelines on antibiotic overuse in livestock, and rolled back standards to allow fewer healthier options for school meals that aim to arrest the spiking rate of childhood obesity. The agency has also taken steps to undermine the integrity of the organic label on food products. USDA has muzzled its own scientists who speak out about the negative impacts of pesticide use. USDA scientists with the Agricultural Research Service have been investigated and suffered consequences from the agency as a result of questioning research regarding the safety of certain pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides has identified the Trump administration’s pattern of sidelining science and prioritizing industrial interest in public policy and regulation across agencies; samples of that coverage: The Threat to Scientific Integrity at EPA, Trump Administration Bows to Chemical Industry, Increasing Pressure for Local Action, Assault on Science, and Where Has All the EPA Enforcement Gone? UCS also published a 2017 report on this pattern, Sidelining Science Since Day One.

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

Source: Mother Jones

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2018) Whole Foods Quietly Put Its Comprehensive GMO Labeling Policy on Hold. As USDA’s proposal to use smiley face labels for genetically engineered (GE) foods or genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) nears implementation, it is more essential than ever that retailers step up to identify genetically engineered foods in their stores. Five years ago, Whole Foods Market announced a plan to label food with GE ingredients sold in its stores. Whole Foods’ plan requires a label for all GE food sold in its stores by the end of 2018, noting that the move was made in response to customers’ increased demand for labeled products. “Some of our manufacturers say they’ve seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled [as non–GMO],” explains A.C. Gallo, Whole Foods president and chief operating officer. The chain’s labeling requirements include all of its North American stores, as its European supermarkets already require this label. Consumers Reports found that 92% of people surveyed (2014) want their food labeled for ingredients that are genetically engineered.

Tell Whole Foods and Owner Amazon to Get Back on Track in Labeling GMOs.

In an email to suppliers on May 18, 2018, Whole Foods’ Mr. Gallo announced that the company, which has recently been acquired by Amazon, would pause its GE labeling requirements in response to suppliers’ concerns about having to comply with two competing sets of rules –Whole Foods’ own labeling requirements and rules newly proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which were then open for public comment.

As currently written, Whole Foods’ requirements would be more stringent than the proposed USDA rules in at least two significant ways. First, USDA has suggested letting companies label GE ingredients by QR code, meaning that customers would need to be directed to a website via smartphone to find out what’s in their food, while Whole Foods never planned to allow QR codes as disclosures. Second, USDA rules contain exemptions for meat products, which are regulated under a different system.

The USDA proposed rule fails in every important respect:

• It allows information to be conveyed by QR codes, whose use requires a cell phone (with camera function) and a reliable broadband connection.
• It allows GE food to be identified as “bioengineered” or by a smiley-faced symbol containing the letters “be.”
• It does not cover highly processed GE foods, like vegetable oils or sugar, and does not include newer genetic engineering techniques, such as CRISPR (a gene editing tool).
• Implementation is delayed.

Given the problems with the USDA proposed rule, including delay in implementation until 2022, it is important for Whole Foods to get back on schedule. Other retailers will certainly follow its lead.

Tell Whole Foods and Owner Amazon to Get Back on Track in Labeling GMOs.

Letter to Whole Foods President and COO A.C. Gallo and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos:

Whole Foods established itself as a policy leader five years ago when it announced a plan to label food with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients sold in its stores. Whole Foods’ plan requires a label for all GE food sold in its stores by the end of 2018. The announcement of the plan noted that the move was made in response to customers’ increased demand for labeled products.

Just weeks ago, only six months before the labeling requirements were to go into effect, however, Whole Foods quietly put its policy on pause, citing possible conflicts with the requirements of the USDA’s proposed labeling regulations. The Whole Foods policy goes beyond the requirements of the USDA proposal and is more responsive to consumer demands. With a scheduled effective date at the end of this year, Whole Foods’ requirements would be in effect four years before USDA’s requirements.

Please be a leader on GE transparency. Consumers Reports found that 92% of people surveyed (2014) want their food labeled for ingredients that are genetically engineered. In the absence of a responsive federal government, consumers expect that responsible corporations will take action. Please take the Whole Foods GE policy off “pause” and implement it by the end of 2018.

Sincerely,