(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2020) A new study by researchers out of the University of Iowa College of Public Health, published in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) Internal Medicine, demonstrates that greater exposure to pyrethroid insecticides is associated with higher risks of death from all causes and from cardiovascular disease. These compounds can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin; they are highly neurotoxic, and have also been linked to certain cancers, endocrine disruption, and suppression of the immune system, as well as respiratory and reproductive impacts.

The researchers gathered data, for 2,116 adults aged 20 or older, from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Each of those subjects had contributed a urine sample at some point between 1999 and 2002. Urine samples reflect levels of a pyrethroid metabolite (3-phenoxybenzoic acid) present, which in turn offer information about pyrethroid exposure. The researchers followed the participants until 2015; the research analysis was performed in the summer of 2019. Data were adjusted to accommodate multiple factors (age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, diet and lifestyle, smoking status, body mass index, and urinary creatinine levels). The co-authors report that subjects with the highest levels of metabolites had a 56% higher risk of death during the follow-up period than did subjects with the lowest exposure levels. In addition, “those in the highest exposure group had three times the cardiovascular mortality risk of those in the lowest exposure group.”

Pyrethroids account for 30% of global pesticide use, and have been generally regarded as effective against insects with few short-term risks to human health. They are used on agricultural crops; for mosquito abatement, including in areas that include aquatic features; on livestock animals and their premises; in food and animal feed processing facilities; and in residential settings. The compounds target a broad variety of insects and arthropods, including ants, worms, beetles, mites, flies, gnats, spiders, weevils, caterpillars, grubs, moths, ticks, lice, wasps, aphids, and midges.

Pyrethroid insecticides are synthetic versions of naturally occurring pyrethrin compounds found in chrysanthemums that grow in Australia and parts of the African continent. Pyrethroids are often touted — by pest control operators and community mosquito management bureaus — as being “as safe as chrysanthemum flowers.” Although, as Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2011, “pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chrysanthemum plant, they are chemically engineered to be more toxic [and to] take longer to break down, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency, and compromising the human body’s ability to detoxify the pesticide.” Use of pyrethroids has spiked as most residential organophosphate use has been phased out.

Pyrethroids represent risks beyond those to human health. They persist in the environment and adversely impact non-target organisms such as bees, fish, and other aquatic organisms; they are extremely damaging to non-target invertebrates, as evidenced by EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency’s) own analysis. In 2017 comments submitted to EPA (relevant to registration of 19 pyrethroid insecticides), Beyond Pesticides noted that “pyrethroid uses result in acute and chronic risks that exceed levels of concern (LOCs) for aquatic organisms,” and set out evidence of risks to pollinators and endangered species.

Commenting scientists Steven Stellman, PhD, and Jeanne Mager Stellman, PhD, of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York, acknowledge limitations of the subject research, e.g., the relatively young average age (for purposes of assessing pyrethroid’s impact on cardiovascular mortality) of participants at the study’s terminus: 57 years. They say that the study results, however, stand out: “Other than cigarette smoking, few, if any, chemical exposures are known to trigger a [threefold] increase in the risk of death from heart disease, especially in [people] younger than 60 years.” They conclude that immediate further investigation of pyrethroid health impacts is warranted. The co-authors concur, saying “Further studies are needed to replicate the findings and determine the underlying mechanisms.”

Beyond Pesticides continues its monitoring of research on pyrethroids, and its advocacy to insist that EPA regulate pesticides based on science and precaution. When EPA proposed, in 2012, an expansion in permitted pyrethroid insecticide uses as part of its cumulative risk assessment for this neurotoxic class of chemicals, it claimed that they did “‘not pose risk concerns for children or adults’ — ignoring a wealth of independent data that links this class of chemicals to certain cancers, respiratory and reproductive problems, and the onset of insect resistance. It went as far as to state that its cumulative assessment supports consideration of registering additional new uses of these pesticides, potentially opening the flood gates for manufacturers to bombard the market with more pyrethroid pesticides, endangering the health of the public.” Beyond Pesticides responded with comments to EPA that identified flaws in its required cumulative assessment, critiqued EPA’s judgment, identified the agency’s violation of its statutory duty, and called the agency out for its poor interpretation of health research data.

The agency is not currently performing much better. In November 2019, EPA proposed further weakening of protections against five pyrethroid compounds. The Trump administration’s EPA had already recently reduced protections for children from this class of insecticides, and the agency is now apparently welcoming the recommendations of industry — from, in this case, the Pyrethroid Working Group, a consortium of pesticide companies — to continue stripping away regulations designed to protect human and environmental health. That EPA November announcement proposed reapproval of five of 23 pyrethroids; proposals regarding the rest are already pending approval.

Beyond Pesticides is submitting comments to EPA on interim decisions on those five pyrethroid insecticides. Among its comments are these: “In its review, EPA fails to meet the statutory standard for continued registration of a pesticide. This failure . . . cuts across several areas of human health and environmental concern — synergistic effects of combined active ingredients in common formulations, a large number of adverse effects incidents, endocrine disruption, vulnerability of children to exposure, and threats to pollinators and endangered species. At the same time, the agency neglects to determine whether the pesticides under review could be replaced by practices or products that are non-toxic or less hazardous. The issues raised in our comments point to serious limitations in the agency’s ability to [assure] the public that pesticide products commonly available for insect control are safe, do not expose the public to serious hazards or uncertainties, and are necessary, given the availability of alternatives.”

Public comments on these interim decisions are due by January 13; the public can register its comments here, referencing docket #EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331-0085: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0331-0085. Reach out to Beyond Pesticides for assistance with making public comments at 1-202-543-5450. Stay tuned for coming news on pyrethroid registration and health impacts of these compounds (and information on pesticides broadly) via the Daily News Blog.

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

Sources: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327415.php#1 and https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2757789

U.S. Army APC spraying Agent Orange in Vietnam.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2020) United States military veterans suffering from bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, hypertension and Parkinson’s-like symptoms after their exposure to Agent Orange will remain unprotected and uncompensated until at least late 2020, a letter sent by Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Robert Wilkie to U.S. Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) indicates. Congress included a provision in the must-pass December federal spending bill requiring VA to provide legislators “a detailed explanation” for the now multi-year delay in determining whether to list the diseases. This is seen by advocates for veterans as a serious lack of support and compensation just at a time when the current administration mobilizes the military.

According to Military Times, 83,000 veterans suffer from bladder cancer, Parkinson’s-like symptoms or hypothyroidism, and an untold number have high blood pressure. The paper interviewed Army Sgt. Maj. John Mennitto, who explained, “Since we first spoke in 2016, I have been diagnosed with bladder cancer. . . I also have hypothyroidism. My greatest concern for me and my fellow veterans who have debilitating diseases caused by exposure to Agent Orange is that our family members will be left with nothing.”

A robust 2014 review by the National Academy of Medicine recommended including the aforementioned diseases in the current list of eligible conditions. The VA indicated a listing decision would come down on November 1, 2017, but instead, a short VA press release simply quoted then-Secretary David Shulkin saying he would “further explore new presumptive conditions.”

Internal documents obtained by a veteran through a FOIA request revealed that Secretary Shulkin had indeed planned to list the diseases. However, the Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget Director, Mick Mulvaney, intervened directly, pointing to the costs of expanding protections.

Acting head of the Veteran’s Health Administration, Richard Stone, MD, told Congress in early 2019 that a decision would be made “within 90 days.” That decision did not materialize.  

In October 2019, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) attempted to introduce a resolution requiring the Trump Administration’s VA to list the diseases. However, he was shot down by U.S. Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who echoed Mr. Mulvaney by citing costs. “It’s time to make sure every that every benefit we promise the veteran we have the money to do it,” he said.

A quote from Rick Weidman, legislative director of Vietnam Veterans for America, to ProPublica after the initial 2017 delay sums up the situation well: “If you can afford the goddamn war, you can afford to take care of the warriors.”

The provision in the Congressional spending bill intended to cut through the ongoing delays, but there is no indication VA is going to meet the 30-day requirement for a detailed explanation. “The longer VA continues to drag its feet on expanding the list of conditions associated with Agent Orange, the longer our veterans continue to suffer — and die — as a result of their exposure,” Senator Tester said in a statement to the news site Connecting Vets. “It’s time for VA to stop ignoring the overwhelming evidence put forth by scientists, medical experts and veterans and do right by those who served. Any prolonging of their suffering is unacceptable.” 

Agent Orange was given its name because it was stored in orange striped drums and contained the active ingredients 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. This formulation was contaminated with the highly toxic 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (also called TCDD or simply dioxin) and is now banned. Not only were soldiers exposed on the battlefield, many veterans who flew in post-Vietnam UC-123 Agent Orange spray aircraft had their health devastated by residual contamination.  

The Vietnam government is part of an ongoing lawsuit against Bayer’s Monsanto for its role in manufacturing the deadly herbicide during the war. Recent reports find that dioxin continues to contaminate Vietnam’s soils, water, sediment, fish, aquatic species, and food supply.

While Agent Orange is banned, a chemical compound that comprised one half of its make-up, 2,4-D, is still one of the most widely used herbicides on lawns, school grounds and parks today. It is considered a possible human carcinogen, and has been linked to liver damage and endocrine disruption in humans, in addition to being toxic to wildlife, pets and beneficial insects. Previous research from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has detected dioxin contamination in a number of 2,4-D herbicide products produced for consumer sale.

It is imperative that a country which asks everything of its soldiers compensate them when they fall ill as a result of their service and through no fault of their own. For more information about the legacy of Agent Orange, see previous Daily News stories on the issue, or view Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database. Help veterans in your community by supporting veteran owned businesses and nonprofit organizations. Veterans looking to go into the organic industry after their service can explore Rodale Institute’s Veteran farmer training program.

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

Source: Military Times, Connecting Vets

(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2020) Researchers across the planet are calling on policymakers to take action to reverse insect decline. In a letter to the editor in Nature Ecology & Evolution, over 70 scientists compiled necessary steps to categorize and rebuild the world’s populations of invertebrates. “We must act now,” they urged.

International evidence points to a massive decline of insect populations at a global scale. This year, researchers warned that, if current trends continue, insects as a whole may go extinct in the next few decades. The rapid loss of invertebrate biodiversity is extremely alarming both because of the dramatic loss of life and devastating affect on the valuable ecosystem services, such as pollination and pest control, that insects provide. In addition, these small-yet-usually-abundant creatures are a vital part of the food chain and, as a result, scientists have documented a massive decline in bird populations in part due to the loss of insect food matter.

The letter offers a tiered response of actions:

Immediate: Implement no-regret solutions to slow or stop insect declines. Prioritize conservation of endangered species.

Solutions include reducing greenhouse gases, reversing trends in agriculture intensification, increasing landscape heterogeneity, and phasing out pesticide use by replacing them with ecological measures. The paper notes, “These solutions will be beneficial to society and biodiversity even if the direct effects on insects are not known as of yet (that is, no-regret solutions).”

Mid-term: Conduct new research and analyze existing data.

In order to disentangle the impact of various anthropogenic stressors that drive declines, more longitudinal research is necessary – both of insects in the field and in museum collections. The authors additionally advocate for innovation and adoption of insect-friendly technologies. They ask for an investment in building capacity to create a new generation of insect conservationists.  

Long-term: Build public-private partnerships, create sustainable funds for restoration, and monitor the problem over time.

The paper promotes “Establishing an international governing body under the auspices of existing bodies (for example, the United Nations Envrionment Programme (UNEP) or the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)) that is accountable for documenting and monitoring the effects of proposed solutions on insect biodiversity in the longer term.”

Coauthor Tara Cornelisse, PhD, an entomologist at the Center for Biological Diversity, stated, “We’re calling for action because insects are key to our own survival, and we ignore their decline at our peril.” Dr. Cornelisse continued, “Study after study confirms that human activities have decimated insects, from butterflies to bees to beetles. We can save these crucial species, but the world has to get moving.”

These words echo a paper released in June where scientists urged the public, “We know enough to act now.” Experts note that it is less critical, at this juncture, to focus on the complexities of the individual issues than to understand that many factors act as a “firing squad” of stressors. “In many cases it will be difficult to identify the killing shot,” the authors wrote in Conservation Science and Practice, “but we know the bullets are flying and we know where they are coming from.”

Similarly, Harvey et al. write that it is unnecessary to address all knowledge gaps before beginning to get to work on this global issue. They advocate for a “learning-by-doing” process of implementation, accompanied by research, to inform ongoing modification of executed measures.

Some of the paper’s language calls for “reduction” of pesticides, but Beyond Pesticides contends that reduction use is inadequate to the crises we face. The success of organic agriculture proves that toxic chemicals are unnecessary to food production. Organic lawn and landscape management can create verdant green space on par with any chemical-intensive property.

Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, wrote of the insect apocalypse, “What do we want to achieve? Certainly, we do not want to spend our lives on the treadmill of banning pesticide after pesticide that are used in land and building management systems because underlying pest conducive conditions are not fixed or prevented. How would we define a preventive approach that avoids the problems that lead to pesticide use and pesticide dependency […]? With organic systems, we are well on our way to eliminating the toxic pesticides that wreak havoc with life.”

There is still time to change our trajectory. More than ever, individuals must connect with their local, state, and federal elected officials and demand changes that protect pollinators and other insect populations. As evidenced by Connecticut and Maryland, and dozens of local pollinator protection policies, concerted efforts by grassroots advocates can create lasting positive change.

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

Sources: Nature Ecology and Evolution, Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, January 7, 2020) It may seem peculiar at first sight, but painting zebra stripes on domestic cattle has the potential to significantly reduce the livestock industry’s use of toxic pesticides, according to research published last year by Japanese scientists at the Aichi Agricultural Research Center in Nagakute, Japan. Each year, farmers spend an estimated $1.6 billion on pesticides in the livestock industry, while biting flies cause over $2 billion of economic loss. This clever example of applied ecology could change those numbers with the added benefit of a safer environment.   

While long considered a mystery, the science is now generally in agreement that zebras developed their stripes in order to confuse and ward off biting flies and the various ailments that can be passed on by the pests. While some cow breeds were developed with spotted patterns that may confer some fly deterrence, researchers used mono-colored Japanese Black cows to test their hypothesis.

Six cows were separated into one of three groups: white and black stripes, black stripes, and an unpainted control. Stripes were painted with a water-based lacquer. The cows were observed starting 30 minutes after the paint was applied and allowed to air out. For a period of nine days, cows were observed in 30-minute windows while scientists recorded their fly-avoidance responses, including head throws, ear beats, leg stamps, skin twitches, and tail flicks.

The changes in cow behavior were significant. Black and white painted cows displayed approximately 40 fly avoidance responses over the 30-minute windows, while black painted and the control groups displayed 54 and 53 responses, respectively. In total, black and white painted cows decreased their fly-avoidance responses by around 20%. Moreover, these cows also display fewer energy-intensive responses, like head throws, ear beats, and leg stamps, opting primarily for skin twitches to manage the pests that did attack.

While there was some suspicion that the smell of the paint was having an impact on pest levels, researchers point to the fact that there was no difference between cows painted with black stripes and the control group, but a major difference between he two painted groups.  

“This work provides an alternative to the use of conventional pesticides for mitigating biting fly attacks on livestock that improves animal welfare and human health, in addition to helping resolve the problem of pesticide resistance in the environment,” the study authors write.

The main drawback for widespread implementation of this approach appears to be the length of time that the paint will last. While water-soluble paints are much cheaper than pesticides, they generally wash out over a couple weeks, requiring reapplication. Researchers indicate that more attention is needed to animal-safe paints that can last longer during the four-month biting fly season.

Continuous pesticide use to repel biting flies on livestock puts animal health at risk, contaminants milk and meat products, and leads to pesticide resistance; it facilitates a pesticide treadmill of increasingly toxic products to replace those that fail. While many organic cattle farmers already emphasize non-toxic methods of fly control on their farms, applying zebra stripe mimicry could become a successful part of an integrated strategy for organic and conventional farmers alike.  

Biting fly problems are amplified by large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), further increasing stress and risk of injury to domestic livestock. Help Beyond Pesticides move U.S. production away from these inhumane conditions and towards novel approaches that apply the wisdom of natural systems to pest management. Support the Farm System Reform Act introduced by Senator Cory Booker as a means of eliminating CAFOs. And see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on organic agriculture for more information on the success of farming without toxic pesticides.

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

Source: PLOS One

(Beyond Pesticides, January 6, 2020) In the midst of recalls of romaine lettuce contaminated with a pathogenic strain of E. coli, states and counties across the country are calling for a moratorium on large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Now Senator Cory Booker is seeking to pass similar legislation at the national level. These industrial-scale operations are commonly referred to as “factory farms.”

Tell your U.S. Senator to cosponsor the Farm System Reform Act introduced by Sen. Cory Booker.

In the last week of November 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a food safety alert concerning a multistate outbreak of E. coli linked to romaine lettuce harvested from Salinas, California. As of November 25, 67 cases had been reported across 19 states, 39 of which required hospitalization, including six who developed kidney failure. The E. coli strain causing the outbreak — O157:H7, also known as STEC — is genetically identical to that responsible for lettuce-related outbreaks in 2017 and 2018. STEC is a dangerous, Shiga toxin-producing type of E. coli. Other outbreaks occurred earlier in 2019 as well.

Dangerous strains of E. coli, including O157:H7, are typically associated with cattle in feedlot conditions. The first of the two outbreaks in 2018 was traced back to manure runoff from a CAFO in the vicinity of the lettuce farm, which polluted water that was used to irrigate the lettuce fields. CAFOs are a major source of water contamination throughout the U.S. As noted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, “Nationwide and in Arizona, the potential for surface and ground water pollution exists through livestock facility discharge of manure-contaminated run off to natural waterways and through wastewater leaching to aquifers. Water and air pollution lead the list of concerns that have led to a number of state and local initiatives to institute moratoria on new and expanded CAFOs. Iowa, which has experienced an explosion of CAFOs, is the example these people want to avoid. In South Dakota, Lyle Reimnitz, who lives a half-mile from a Davison County hog farm with a permit for 8,000 sows, says, “I don’t wanFt to see South Dakota become another Iowa,” he said. “We don’t need all our rivers and streams polluted. I know everybody wants cheap meat, but that comes at a terrible price for people who live here.”

In Wisconsin, supporters of a statewide moratorium on CAFOs are urging concerned citizens to ask County Supervisors, Town Board Members, and City Councillors to pass resolutions supporting a state-wide CAFO moratorium. In California, a report on dairy CAFOs found that “major production externalities are still imposed upon the communities in which Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are located, due in large part to lack of resources, information, enforcement capability and political will on the part of local and regional regulatory agencies.” And, in Indiana, a report by the Indiana Business Research Center found, “For town residential properties, having the closest RLO [regulated livestock operation, or CAFO] upwind of the residence reduced the sale price by $4,980.00 and if the closest RLO contained dairy cattle, the sale price was further reduced by $32,340.00 for every 100 mature head.” In addition to these concerned citizens, the American Public Health Association has also called for a moratorium on CAFOs.

A majority of Americans say they want more stringent oversight of large-scale livestock operations, according to a national poll by Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future released December 10, 2019.

Traditional family farmers, and groups like the National Farmers Union, favor judicious regulatory controls due to the overall deleterious impacts these industrial agricultural sites have on rural communities. Other impacts include odors and fugitive dust that might contain antibiotic-resistant organisms.

Senator Booker’s bill, the Farm System Reform Act, would require that “corporate integrators” are “responsible for pollution and other harm caused by CAFOs,” which would be phased out by 2040.

Tell your U.S. Senator to cosponsor the Farm System Reform Act introduced by Sen. Cory Booker.

Letter to Congress

I am writing to ask you to cosponsor the Farm System Reform Act, unveiled by Senator Cory Booker in December.

In the midst of recalls of romaine lettuce contaminated with a pathogenic strain of E. coli, states and counties across the country are calling for a moratorium on large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Sen. Booker’s bill seeks a moratorium at the national level.

In the last week of November 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a food safety alert concerning a multistate outbreak of E. coli linked to romaine lettuce harvested from Salinas, California. As of November 25, 67 cases had been reported across 19 states, 39 of which required hospitalization, including six who developed kidney failure. The E. coli strain causing the outbreak — O157:H7, also known as STEC — is genetically identical to that responsible for lettuce-related outbreaks in 2017 and 2018. STEC is a dangerous, Shiga toxin-producing type of E. coli. Other outbreaks occurred earlier in 2019 as well.

E. coli O157:H7 is typically associated with cattle. The first of the two outbreaks in 2018 was traced back to manure runoff from a CAFO in the vicinity of the lettuce farm, which polluted water that was used to irrigate the lettuce fields. CAFOs are a major source of water contamination throughout the U.S. As noted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, “Nationwide and in Arizona, the potential for surface and ground water pollution exists through livestock facility discharge of manure-contaminated run off to natural waterways and through wastewater leaching to aquifers.”

Water and air pollution lead the list of concerns that have led to a number of state and local initiatives to institute moratoria on new and expanded CAFOs. Iowa, which has experienced an explosion of CAFOs, is the example these people want to avoid. In South Dakota, Lyle Reimnitz, who lives a half-mile from a Davison County hog farm with a permit for 8,000 sows, says, “I don’t want to see South Dakota become another Iowa,” he said. “We don’t need all our rivers and streams polluted. I know everybody wants cheap meat, but that comes at a terrible price for people who live here.”

In Wisconsin, supporters of a statewide moratorium on CAFOs are urging concerned citizens to ask County Supervisors, Town Board Members, and City Councillors to pass resolutions supporting a state-wide CAFO moratorium. In California, a report on dairy CAFOs found that “major production externalities are still imposed upon the communities in which Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are located, due in large part to lack of resources, information, enforcement capability and political will on the part of local and regional regulatory agencies.” In Indiana, a report by the Indiana Business Research Center found, “For town residential properties, having the closest RLO [regulated livestock operation, or CAFO] upwind of the residence reduced the sale price by $4,980.00 and if the closest RLO contained dairy cattle, the sale price was further reduced by $32,340.00 for every 100 mature head.” In addition to these concerned citizens, the American Public Health Association has also called for a moratorium on CAFOs.

A majority of Americans say they want more stringent oversight of large-scale livestock operations, according to a national poll by Johns Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future released December 10, 2019.

Please cosponsor Senator Booker’s bill, the Farm System Reform Act, which would require that “corporate integrators” are “responsible for pollution and other harm caused by CAFOs” and phase them out by 2040.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2020) In a hard-earned win, the city of Malibu, California collaborated with the Coastal Commission to ban toxic pesticide use in their community. While the city had already voted to ban all toxic pesticides back in 2016, the state’s pesticide law preempts, or prohibits, a municipality from restricting private use of pesticides more stringently than the state. However, the Coastal Commission, as a state agency that establishes agreements with municipalities—known as a “Local Coastal Program” or “LCP”—circumvents the preemption issue. The  municipal agreement document codifies regulations that are set up between the Coastal Commission and a local jurisdiction.

On December 9, 2019, Malibu City Council unanimously voted to amend Malibu LCP to ban the use of toxic pesticides. Many advocates gave passionate testimony at the voting session, including environmental experts and attorneys that spoke to the legality of the move and the legal protection from predicted pesticide industry backlash.

Activist Joel Schulman of Poison Free Malibu said about the ban, “We’re basing our local coastal program amendment on what [unincorporated L.A.] County did in 2014.” That year, L.A. County and the Coastal Commission banned anticoagulant rodenticides and some toxic pesticides in the unincorporated Santa Monica Mountains Coastal Zone LCP.

In September 2017, a Superior Court rejected a lawsuit challenging the decision and reaffirmed the ability of the Coastal Commission to work with municipalities to restrict pesticide use. “I actually went to the Coastal Commission meeting and asked them to help spread the same kind of prohibitions up and down the coastal zone,” said Mr. Schulman.

While there has been debate on their legal authority, Malibu’s local lawmakers have largely been supportive of promoting this ban. “This has to happen,” said Mayor Pro Tem Mikke Pierson. “If it ends up in some sort of lawsuit we’ll go there. This means everything.”

California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation rejects the new pesticide ban. Spokeswoman Charolette Fadipe wrote in an email to the Los Angeles Times, “We believe [Malibu’s] action exceeds their authority and the proposed ordinance would be preempted.”

Californian advocates have been motivated to act on pesticide reform, particularly regarding rodenticides, to protect wildlife and children. The poisoning of charismatic big cats such as P-22 sparked awareness about the risks of rodenticides. Wildlife are at high risk of secondary poisoning from eating contaminated animals.

“Anticoagulant rodenticides are just one element of the larger problem of long-lasting poisons introduced to our coastal environment that place biological resources and sensitive habitats at risk,” state Senator Henry Stern noted in a letter of support for the Malibu ordinance. “I … encourage you to take the necessary steps to protect our cherished natural habitats and wildlife.”

Even as advocates celebrated this local win, Mayor Karen Farrer called for advocates to keep up pressure regarding state bill AB-1788, to ban virulent, second-generation anticoagulants (SGARs) from both nonagricultural private and public use across the state. Vigilant lobbying by pest control companies caused the bill to stall in committee in August. The bill has been extended a year for further work.

Other groups are in the statewide fight: environmental advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity has sent in an intent to sue California pesticide regulators on some toxic rodenticides and their threat to endangered species such as San Joaquin kit foxes and California condors.

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

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

Sources: LA Times, M’Online  

(Beyond Pesticides, January 2, 2020) Organic farming practices enhance soil life, resulting in long-term benefits for soil health that ultimately improve crop productivity, a study published in the journal Agricultural Systems finds. The research, published by scientists at Cornell University, underlines the important role soil-dwelling organisms (SDOs) must play in a sustainable agricultural future. “When I think about crop management, nutrient amendments are not going to be the limiting factor [in crop productivity] for farmers in the U.S.,” said study co-author Ashley Jernigan, a Cornell University graduate student in entomology. “Really, we need to be optimizing these biotic processes in our soil and focusing more on biotic measurements,” Ms. Jernigan said.

Scientists began their research at an experimental farm that, since 2005, had been managed under four different organic cropping systems (reduced tillage, low fertility, high fertility, and enhanced weed management). In 2017, the entire site was plowed under and seeded with sorghum in order to understand how these prior practices affected soil health and crop productivity. The metrics measured by researchers include SDO abundance and community structure, crop productivity, and weed abundance.

These metrics are found to be highly dependent on past management practices. For instance, sorghum planted on the enhanced weed management plot, where the soil was frequently plowed, had fewer weeds, but the SDOs present are those better able to handle disturbances, and less likely to significantly enhance soil health. This contrasts with the reduced tillage plot, which contained an abundance SDOs that enhance microbial activity in the soil and facilitate nutrient cycling. Despite the higher level of weed biomass in the reduced tillage plot when compared to the weed management plot, weeds problems were not overwhelming, and crop productivity was higher with reduced tillage. “If weeds are adequately suppressed, reducing tillage in organic cropping systems can regenerate soil health and increase crop production,” said Cornell professor and study co-author Matthew Ryan, PhD.

The results of this study have important implications for the future of agriculture. As Cornell University notes in its coverage of the research, “The study is important because unsustainable farming practices are depleting soils of biological activity and nutrients, leading to widespread concern about farmers’ ability to grow enough food to keep up with global population growth.”

Thus, this research underscores the importance of a frequently overlooked “limiting factor” in crop productivity – soil health. While chemical-intensive agricultural practices focus on delivering the basic building blocks of plant life – the nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK) – and managing weed and pest problems through chemical pesticides, it all but ignores the soil. Soil in chemical-intensive farming is treated as simply a medium for delivering nutrients, rather than an ecological system that must be considered. In such a backwards system, given that chemical use is harming SDOs and other biological life, such an approach is not surprising.

What scientists found is that crop productivity is closely correlated with specific types of SDOs and the stability of the soil, both of which relate to past management practices. Even within organic systems, different management practices can have different long-term impacts on soil health.

Proponents of chemical-intensive farming often denigrate organic systems for their inability to “feed the world,” while ignoring that it is their harmful practices that are directly undermining the long-term ability to do so. And while yields in conventional systems are plateauing, research on organic systems is still in its infancy. There is no doubt among experts that with additional research like the present study, organic can (and must) feed the world.

For more information about the benefits of organic cropping systems, see Beyond Pesticides Why Organic? webpage.

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

Source: Cornell Chronicle, Agricultural Systems

(Beyond Pesticides, December 24, 2019) The staff and board of Beyond Pesticides wish our members and network all the best for the holiday season and new year. We look forward to working with you in the new year to meet the serious environmental and public health challenges with truly organic solutions.

Our accomplishments are your victories. We are seeing the outcomes in communities across the country—the adoption of organic land management policies and practices that eliminate toxic pesticides, protect children and families, and protect the local ecology.

Beyond Pesticides’ program responds to the urgent need to address the public health and environmental crises of our times—climate crisis, insect apocalypse, pesticide-induced illness, and the dramatic decline in biodiversity. With on-the-ground practices and local policies, we replace fossil fuel-based, toxic, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers with organic management strategies.

TAKING A STAND

Beyond Pesticides’ program supports a clear message: End toxic pesticide use and embrace organic practices and policies that respect the power of nature to heal— in the face of devastating and destructive toxic chemical-dependency. This past year has again elevated important public discourse on the threats that pesticides pose to health and the environment. We see in the mainstream culture increased understanding that pesticides threaten health, wreak havoc with ecosystems, create imbalances in nature that escalate threats—and are not needed for cost-effective land and building management. Also, reinforced in the last year, is a deep appreciation for the reality that local advocacy drives the changes that are critical to a livable future—scientific facts coupled with action advance the adoption of solutions that are within our reach.

ELEVATING SCIENCE THAT CALLS FOR URGENT NEED TO ACT

From a public health and environmental protection perspective, these are challenging times. Amid the attack on institutions and laws established to protect children, families, and the environment under the current federal administration, there is an incredibly positive groundswell of activity seeking to achieve these protections in communities across the U.S. We are inspired by the level of effective advocacy and changes in practices that are moving forward nationwide.

TAKING ACTION IN COMMUNITIES

Local land management and ordinances across the country are just as much about preventing hazards and filling an increasing gap in protection from regulators, as it is about recognizing the viability of sound land management practices. These practices do not use toxic chemicals and result in healthier and more resilient plant life that stands up to stress and is less reliant on limited water resources.

PUTTING IN PLACE EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS

Outdated chemical-intensive practices are tied to the belief that parks, playing fields, home lawns, and agriculture require toxic chemicals and synthetic fertilizers to meet expectations. So, an approach that recognizes the importance of soil biology in cycling nutrients naturally to feed plants is often new to many land managers who have not evaluated and nurtured the web of microorganisms living in the soil. This attention to the soil systems has been foundational to the success of organic agriculture nationwide. Those critics, who often have a vested economic interest or history in pesticide use and proclaim that organic does not work, are, in effect, challenging the underlying principles of soil management that have enabled the exponential growth of the organic agricultural sector— now a $50 billion industry and the fastest-growing part of the agricultural economy.

Moving Ahead with Our Goal

Meeting the challenges with a transformative strategy

Our efforts focus on shifting communities’ approach to land and building management to address critical health and environmental issues. To move this goal forward, we carry out activities that advance a holistic awareness of the complex adverse effects and unknowns associated with pesticide-dependent management practices and policies. On a daily basis, we bring attention to and broader understanding of the actual hands-on practices that are protective of health and in sync with nature.

Creating model communities

We are well-positioned to effect changes in communities that serve as a model for other communities. We continue to develop the informational tools that support change agents, whether they are advocates or elected officials. We are also able to provide the technical skills to land managers, which ensure effective implementation of policies and plans for sustainable and organic land management.

Our organic transition on pilot sites continues in Richmond (CA), University of California Berkeley (CA) and the CA university system, Salt Lake City (UT), Hyattsville (MD), South Portland (ME), Dover and Portsmouth (NH), Longmont (CO), and Maui (HI) and the entire state, including the state school system. New projects have begun in University Heights (OH), South Euclid (OH), Minneapolis (MN), New York City (NY), Pittsburgh (PA), Mt. Pleasant (SC), and Eugene, Springfield, and Talent, OR.

Action of the Week

Action of the Week provides our network with one concrete action that can be taken each week to have our collective voice heard to stop governmental actions that adversely affect  public, worker, and environmental health, increase overall pesticide use, or undermine the advancement of organic, sustainable, and regenerative practices and policies. The actions are generating up to 4,000 participants weekly.

Bee Protective

Protecting pollinators and threatened species; reversing the insect apocalypse

Seeds that Poison

We released our short film, Seeds that Poison, which frames the pollinator issue in the context of pesticide-dependent land management practices that are harmful to biodiversity and positions organic as the solution. The animated short film points to the accumulated studies and data that have found that honey bees and other pollinators, including native bees, butterflies and birds, are in decline. The film complements our tracking of the science documenting the decline and its relationship to pesticide use and the related factors, such as parasites, improper nutrition, stress, and habitat loss.

Keeping Organic Strong

To elevate our voice, Beyond Pesticides announced the formation of a new investigative arm, OrganicEye. This watchdog agency will focus on defending the “time-honored philosophy and legal definition of organic farming and food production.” With Beyond Pesticides’ executive director having served on the National Organic Standards Board, this is a critical time to advocate for organic integrity.

Reports for Change

Providing a framework for advancing transformative change

Beyond Pesticides issues unique reports to support local activism to move changes in practices and policies that eliminate pesticide use. With this information and the model policy that we have created, local people nationwide have successfully moved change. Reports include: Good Health Harmed by a Cascade of Complex Pesticide Effects— Inadequate attention to complex human biology, underestimation of hazards, and the urgent need to transition to organic; Pesticide Exposure and the Obesity Pandemic—Exposures to endocrine disrupting pesticides echo down the generations; Protecting Biodiversity with Organic Practices—Study finds organic farming helps maintain healthy pollinator populations; Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem—Regulatory deficiencies cause trophic cascades that threaten species survival; Monsanto: Decades of Deceit—Glyphosate/Roundup is the poster child for the bigger pesticide problem; and Thinking Holistically When Making Land Management Decisions—Regulatory analyses that support pesticide use ignore complex ecological impacts.

Center for Community Pesticide and Alternatives Information

Science, policy, and advocacy for change

The Center serves as a hub for a range of regulatory and policy advocacy, information services to people nationwide and around the globe, networking through coalition work and the convening of our National Forum, and on-site training on organic land management in communities that are collaborating with Beyond Pesticides on demonstration parks and playing fields. Our hands-on information through ManageSafe, our database of practical solutions to pest issues is a central clearinghouse of information on eliminating hazardous pesticide use. Our message is getting out through our neighbor-to-neighbor program, having distributed 286 pesticide-free zone signs, and nearly 3,000 doorknob hangers on safe lawns and mosquito management in 43 states.

37th National Pesticide Forum, Organic Strategies for Community Environmental Health: Eliminating pesticides where we live, work, learn and play.

The Forum, held in April 2019, contributed important science and strategy to participants and our extensive video library for pesticide and organic activism. The Forum was convened by Beyond Pesticides and the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai Institute for Exposomic Research at the New York Academy of Medicine in New York, NY. Cosponsors included: Environmental Law Advocates at Fordham University School of Law, No Spray Coalition, Grassroots Environmental Education, New York Environmental Law and Justice Project, Friends of Animals, New Yorkers for Pesticide-Free Parks (NYPFP), The Sierra Club NYC Group, Sixth Street Community Center, Food and Water Watch in New York, NYC Grassroots Alliance, Garden of Eve Organic Farm & Market, iEatGreen, Perfect Earth Project, Battery Park City Authority, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Center for Earth Ethics, Brooklyn Grange Rooftop Farms, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY), Clean Water Action NJ, Green City Force, Newtown Creek Alliance, 350 NYC, Green Inside and Out.

Watch videos from the Forum — up now on YouTube!

Save the Date—April 17-18, 2020, Boulder, Colorado. We are now planning for the 38^th National Pesticide Forum, cultivating Healthy Communities: Collective action for a biodiverse, toxic-free world, convened by Beyond Pesticides and the City of Boulder, Colorado.

Please plan to join us!

Consider a donation to Beyond Pesticides to bring in the new year with the strongest possible voice for an end to toxic pesticide use and the adoption of organic management practices and policies.

We’re taking a break. Daily News and Action of the Week will be back January 2, 2020. See you then.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 23, 2019) An unintended consequence of the National Organic Standards, the rules that govern certified organic agricultural production, actually provides an incentive for the conversion of critical ecosystems to organic cropland, fueling deforestation and biodiversity loss.

Tell the National Organic Program to issue regulations that will prevent the conversion of native ecosystems to organic cropland.

One National Organic Program (NOP) requirement for organic certification—a three-year waiting period during which land must be free of disallowed substances—encourages the conversion of critical ecosystems, which do not require the three-year waiting period.

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

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), which is responsible for advising the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), has been studying this problem since 2009, ultimately resulting in a 2018 recommendation. Beyond Pesticides commented on the proposal, “Despite efforts of organic farmers to build and protect biodiversity, it is unlikely that the organic farm will achieve the same level of biodiversity and ecological resilience as the original ecosystem. On the other hand, the conversion of conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture to organic agriculture provides huge benefits to biodiversity through both the absence of toxic inputs and positive measures to increase biodiversity in soil-based systems that are required by OFPA or its regulations. Therefore, Beyond Pesticides supports efforts by the NOSB to eliminate incentives to convert high-value native land to organic production, as well as to increase incentives to convert chemical-intensive farmland to organic production.”

In May 2018, the NOSB approved (nearly unanimously) the revised, formal Eliminating the Incentive to Convert Native Ecosystems to Organic Production recommendation. Typically, once the NOSB has made a recommendation, NOP puts it on the rulemaking agenda, develops a rule proposal on the basis of the recommendation, solicits public comment, and then develops a final rule. Yet, NOP has taken no action to bring the recommendation into its rulemaking process. Public pressure on USDA is needed to persuade NOP to “do its duty” and bring the NOSB recommendation forward to the rulemaking agenda.

Tell the National Organic Program to issue regulations that will prevent the conversion of native ecosystems to organic cropland.

Letter to USDA

I am very concerned about the failure of the National Organic Program to protect native ecosystems by implementing the NOSB recommendation “Eliminating the Incentive to Convert Native Ecosystems to Organic Production.”

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

Despite efforts of organic farmers to build and protect biodiversity, it is unlikely that the organic farm will achieve the same level of biodiversity and ecological resilience as the original ecosystem. On the other hand, the conversion of conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture to organic agriculture provides huge benefits to biodiversity through both the absence of toxic inputs and positive measures to increase biodiversity in soil-based systems that are required by the Organic Foods Production Act and its regulations.

The NOSB recommended nearly unanimously that NOP should adopt regulations to define “native ecosystems” more specifically and require a 10-year waiting period before such land can be converted into organic cropland. With the crisis in loss of biodiversity that we are experiencing, it is important that organic producers lead the way in protecting the diversity of life.

Please initiate regulations eliminating incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic production as soon as possible.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: UC Davis, Environmental Science and Technology

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

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

Everything is wrong with the use of these poisons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to Congress

Thank you.

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

Or request to sign on:

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

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

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

Everything is wrong with the use of these poisons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Phys.org press release, PLOS One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you Letter to Cosponsors

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

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

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

Thank you for cosponsoring H.R. 1709.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

Please cosponsor H.R. 1709.

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Science of the Total Environment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Reuters, Bloomberg, NPR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: National Science Foundation, PLOS ONE