(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2018) New data from the California monarch butterfly count indicate that the western population of the species is continuing to decline at an alarming rate, with scientists and conservation groups pointing to man-made factors like logging, climate change, and herbicide use on genetically engineered (GE) crop fields as primary drivers. The annual California count of western monarch butterflies stationed volunteers at 262 sites, more than ever before, yet at 200,000 butterflies counted, the numbers nearly matched the lowest level recorded this decade, when only 145,000 butterflies were seen in 2012. The decline of these iconic butterflies demands swift action from lawmakers and regulators to protect their dwindling numbers.

Dramatic declines in monarch populations mirror continuing declines in honey bees and other wild pollinator species. Species declines may be even broader than pollinators, affecting all insects in general. Research from Germany recently found that insect abundance declined 75% over the last 30 years, owing the results primarily to agricultural intensification.

The western population of monarch butterflies – those found west of the Rocky Mountains – overwinter in coastal California forests. Throughout the warmer months, female butterflies will lay eggs only on milkweed, making these plants critical to the survival of the species. Adults forage on nectar from a range of flowers in Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Utah, before returning back to their forest groves for the winter.

According to past data from the Xerces Society, which began its annual monarch count in 1997, at that time over 1.2 million monarch butterflies were found to overwinter in California’s central coast. When compared to the count that took place just one year before in 2016, western monarch numbers are down by 100,000 butterflies.  In the 1980s, over 10 million monarchs spent the winter in California forestland.

A study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last year on the butterfly’s dwindling population indicates that western monarchs have an extinction risk of 86% within the next 50 years. Within only 20 years, the risk is still 72%. “This study doesn’t just show that there are fewer monarchs now than 35 years ago,” said study author Cheryl Schultz, PhD, an associate professor at Washington State University Vancouver. “It also tells us that, if things stay the same, western monarchs probably won’t be around as we know them in another 35 years.”

Eastern monarch populations have also been declining over the past several decades. A 2017 study by the World Wildlife Fund and other conservation groups determined that the population has decreased by 80% since the 1990s, further warning that within 20 years eastern monarch’s iconic migration route from Canada to Mexico could completely, and likely irreversibly, collapse.

A range of factors have been linked to monarch declines. Natural events such as extreme weather, wildfires and smoke have been discussed, but a greater emphasis has been placed on manmade impacts. Climate change can alter the migration patterns. Legal and illegal logging and development in Mexico and coastal California has eliminated significant habitat for monarch overwintering. And milkweed, the sole source for female monarchs to lay eggs and perpetuate the species, once abundant throughout the entirety of the United States, is now nearly eradicated around farmland through which the species makes its annual migration.

Those wishing to support their local monarch populations can find sources of milkweed for their particular climate by visiting the Xerces Society milkweed seed finder.  Individual residents taking action is a critical part of the long-term solution for monarchs, but broader changes in land-use and agriculture are needed to ensure that these species will still be around for another 50 years.

GE crops, able to tolerate repeated sprayings of a particular herbicide, whether glyphosate, dicamba, or 2,4-D, are making the edges and roadsides around farm fields where milkweed often grows desolate, lifeless areas. Further compounding a lack of milkweed is the additional use of insecticides on these fields. Chemical company encourage farmers to use systemic neonicotinoids to coat the outer layer of their GE seeds in an unnecessary attempt to protect it from pests. Unfortunately, both herbicides and insecticides don’t stay where they’re originally applied. Herbicide use on GE-tolerant crops drift and kill milkweed and other plants pollinators rely on. Coated seeds will often drift during planting, or run-off into soil and groundwater afterwards, contaminating these same pollinator-friendly plants.  Research published in 2015 found that milkweed contamination from drifting neonicotinoids made the plants toxic to larvae which rely on it as its sole source of food once hatched.

Changing the way we farm can make an immense difference for the protection of monarchs and other pollinators. Help pollinators by only purchasing products that don’t allow GE crops or toxic systemic insecticides. Certified organic agricultural practices successfully produce profitable yields while managing to not poison the air, water, soil, vegetation, and other wildlife around their farm.

But changing agriculture also requires additional authority to institute protections for these important pollinators. Take action today! Tell the National Resource Conservation Service to significantly increase the amount of funding spent on monarch conservation and the habitat restoration, and ensure that restored habitat is not poisoned with hazardous pesticides.

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

Source: Xerces Society, Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, February, 6, 2018) Scientists, doctors, and environmental groups are pushing back against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to purge academic scientists who had previously received EPA grants from sitting on the agency’s advisory committees. Last October, EPA issued a new policy that changes the makeup of its advisory boards by limiting the participation of scientists from academia and nonpartisan nonprofit organizations. Critics say the change attempts to fill these advisory committees with more industry-friendly officials whose belief systems are anti-environmental protection. On January 23, 2018, a group of scientists filed suit against EPA, citing the directive as arbitrary, without any factual or legal grounding and in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires advisory committees to be fairly balanced and protected from inappropriate influence by the appointing authority.

In 1978, Congress directed the EPA to establish the Science Advisory Board, which today is a 47-member panel, to provide scientific advice to the Administrator. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced in October that he would exclude anyone from serving on any of the 23 EPA scientific advisory boards if they had received EPA grants to fund any of their research. Administrator Pruitt claims the policy change will prevent conflicts of interest. But, his decree means that the agency’s decision makers will not receive input from top scientific experts, many of whom rely on public grants to conduct independent studies.

The lawsuit explains that open exchange of accurate scientific information is a touchstone of a functioning democracy, and contends that the Administrator failed to explain why scientists and experts who receive similar funding from other sources — scientists affiliated with private industry or local governments — fall outside the scope of the purge. In singling out academic members of the scientific community who are receiving EPA grants, EPA’s directive “lays bare its real function: to stack the deck against scientific integrity.” The lawsuit asks the court to overturn Pruitt’s directive and prevent EPA staff from implementing the directive.

“This is an abuse of power and an affront to the scientific integrity of the EPA and the federal government,” said Joshua Goldman, senior legal analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This directive singles out scientists from the nonprofit and academic sector—recognized experts in their field who want to serve the public—and asks them to choose between public service and their scientific work. It’s another example of this administration’s hostility to independent scientific input and basing policy on impartial and balanced scientific evidence. The directive inherently prevents the agency from receiving independent scientific advice, and erects unnecessary barriers to scientists who want to use their expertise to serve the public.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court for the District of Massachusetts by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization, and the law firm Jenner & Block, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists and Dr. Elizabeth A. (Lianne) Sheppard, professor at the University of Washington, School of Public Health.

This lawsuit comes one month after Earthjustice filed a similar complaint on behalf of Physicians for Social Responsibility, National Hispanic Medical Association, and the International Society for Children’s Health and Environment, challenging EPA’s attempt to remove scientists from the agency’s advisory committees. Earthjustice’s suit argues that the policy illegally overrides federal ethics rules and that it is arbitrarily biased in favor of corporate interests. Advisors picked by Administrator Pruitt to join the advisory boards, like Robert Phalen, once claimed that “modern air is a little too clean for optimum health.” Such advisors will inevitably tilt EPA decisions and programs in favor of polluters. Another Science Advisory Board appointees include a new chair, Michael Honeycutt, who has claimed that more smog would be a “health benefit.” As the lead toxicologist on Texas’ state environmental agency, he has opposed stricter limits on mercury and arsenic releases and undermined protections for benzene, a common and powerful carcinogen

The EPA’s Science Advisory Board now includes 14 new members who consult or work for the fossil fuel or chemical industries, which gave sizeable campaign contributions to Administrator Pruitt when he was an Oklahoma state senator and attorney general, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Science advisory boards also play a crucial watchdog role. Scientists from across the country from diverse backgrounds are relied on the review and provide council to EPA programs and decision-making, ensuring the science is robust, transparent and sufficiently assessed to provide adequate protections for the environment. According to Earthjustice, since 2012, industry allies in Congress have repeatedly proposed legislation that would prohibit scientists from serving on the boards if they receive EPA grants. Industry understands that academic experts rely upon these grants to a much greater extent than industry consultants do. Much of the grant money goes to support graduate students who conduct academic research while earning paltry stipends—$24,000 per year is typical. If academics must choose between receiving EPA grants and continuing to serve on science advisory boards, the choice they really face is whether to continue funding students. Unsurprisingly, many teachers are committed to their students and will choose to leave the boards rather than decline funding. Pruitt then can replace them with industry allies.

These changes to EPA’s science advisory boards in just one of a host of measures aimed at dismantling the agency and opening the gates for an industry take over. While environmentalists and public health experts have criticized EPA for lax or inadequate regulation, the administrator has been getting rid of EPA scientists and staff and attacking public health and the environment through proposed budget cuts by the Trump administration.

Source: Earthjustice, Think Progress

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 5, 2018) We are all concerned about the workers who grow and harvest our food. A sustainable food system must protect the land and the people who work the land, including the children and families of farmworkers. In two related actions, EPA is proposing to remove age requirements for application of pesticides. The actions involve changes to the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS), which went into effect this January and covers farmworkers hired to apply pesticides, and the Certification of Applicators (CA) rule, which will go into effect May 22 and covers those allowed to apply highly toxic restricted use pesticides (RUPs), the most toxic pesticides. The proposals to remove the age requirements present unacceptable risks to teenagers, who “are still developing in critical physical and emotional areas, with particular regard to their brains and reproductive systems,” according to the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP).

Tell your Congressional delegation that EPA must not eliminate the minimum age requirement.

Under the Obama administration, EPA added a minimum age requirement of 18 to both rules. A 16-year-old may apply RUPs under the supervision of a certified applicator under the CA rule. Reportedly, the reason for removing the age requirement is that “teenagers often work for less money than older employees.”

The removal of the age requirement is opposed by farmworker and children’s health advocates. Farmworker Justice applauded the new rule, including the age requirement, then sued EPA to implement the rule earlier this year. AAP points out that dangers of pesticide exposures to teens include long-term damage to nervous and reproductive systems. It also points out that 16 to 17-year-old workers in other industries are prohibited from working with hazardous chemicals.

At a U.S. Senate oversight hearing last week, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker blasted EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt for his lack of concern over environmental justice issues. In particular, Sen. Booker noted the proposal to drop the minimum age requirement for agricultural workers who can use pesticides. Many of these workers, Sen. Booker noted, come from “communities of color, indigenous communities and low income communities.” When Sen. Booker asked, “Do you think that children handling dangerous pesticides is a good idea?” Mr. Pruitt responded –as he had to other Senators’ questions—by changing the subject.

Tell your Congressional delegation that EPA must not eliminate the minimum age requirement.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 2, 2018) California regulators may be drastically underestimating chemical-intensive agriculture’s contribution to nitrogen oxide (NO_x) caused air pollution, acid rain, and respiratory illness in the state, according to a new study published in Science Advances by researchers at University of California, Davis. While NO_x  pollution is usually associated with energy production and vehicle emissions, fertilizer use on crop fields is contributing to significant air pollution problems. Advocates say that the study is an urgent call for farmers to eliminate dependency on soluble, synthetic, nitrogen-based fertilizers and adopt the use of insoluble soil amendments that support soil biology that provide plants with nutrients.

NO_x gasses are major sources of pollution in the U.S. and throughout the world, and include the compounds nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). Chemical-intensive, synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are applied in a form that is readily available to plants, while organic nitrogen fertilizers require the biological life in the soil to break down the fertilizer into a form that plants can use. These nitrogen fertilizers that are not immediately taken up by plants can cause pollution problems. Natural nitrogen in the atmosphere must be transformed to be able to be used by organisms as a source of nutrients through a range of biological factors in the soil. However, the pollution associated with the production of synthetic fertilizers that requires petroleum or natural gas, increasingly from fracking, and the introduction of synthetic nitrogen and other pollutants into the atmosphere contributes to environmental degradation, asthma, and other public health problems..

While some fertilizer not taken up by crops will eventually turn into harmless nitrogen (N₂), other amounts can become hazardous nitrogen oxide gasses. Once out of soil and into the atmosphere, NO_x gasses react with moisture, sunlight, and other chemicals to form pollution. The gasses can combine with other chemicals in the air to form particulate matter able to deeply penetrate and harm human lungs, create acid rain when interacting with water, and form haze that decreases visibility. A 2014 report from the World Health Organization indicates that 1 in 8 total global deaths, around 7 million people each year, die prematurely as a result of exposure to air pollution.

The results of this study stand in stark contrast to the state’s current estimation of NO_x  emissions from farmland soil. While the California Air Resources Board (CARB) indicates only 3.8% of NO_x air pollution comes from croplands, researchers determined that the contribution may in fact be between as much as 20 to 51%.

The study suggests that the state’s methodology for recording cropland emissions may be at fault. CARB measures emissions using data obtained from farms only within 125 miles of Sacramento, thus failing to record higher NO_x levels that emanate from areas with more intense agricultural production, such as California’s Central Valley.

Researchers took both a “top-down” and “bottom-up” approach to measuring NO_x emissions. As part of the “top-down” approach, planes outfitted with scientific equipment took measurements of NO_x emissions over California’s San Joaquin Valley, between Fresno and Visalia, a hotbed for agriculture and an area where some of the highest amounts of nitrogen fertilizer is applied. As part of the “bottom-up” approach, researchers compared results seen from direct measurements over the San Joaquin Valley to a model developed for the same region. The model created by researchers produced estimates only slightly higher than those discovered via plane measurements. Researchers then looked at NO_x emissions compared to nitrogen application rates recorded by the state of California and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, finding that high rates of nitrogen fertilizer use in lined up neatly with high levels of NO_x emissions.

Researchers determined that temperature, soil moisture, and the amount of nitrogen applied are the most significant factors in whether a soil will release NO_x or inert forms of N_2. Higher temperatures, more arid soil, and higher nitrogen fertilizer application rates act as the greatest risk factors for NO_x emissions. However, the UC Davis scientists provided a range of suggested practices that farmers can implement to reduce harmful emissions. Lower application rates and precision fertilization, rather than broadcast applications, can help reduce excess nitrogen input into soils. Cover crops, and the creation of riparian areas around farmlands can help absorb residual nitrogen. Greater attention to irrigation practices can also ensure that inorganic nitrogen in the soil is not converted into nitrogen oxides. In organic farming systems, the nurturing of microbial activity in the soil food web (a feed-the-soil system) produces slow release nutrients including nitrogen that is taken up by he plants.

With population continuing to increase lock-step with demand for food, unless measures are taken to conserve nitrogen use, this trend is likely to accelerate. The good news is that many of these practices that support the soil food web are already being used on certified organic farms. And given the significance of this study, conventional farmers have a greater incentive to implement them as well. Speaking with the Fresno Bee, Jim Houston of the California Farm Bureau Federation said, “Farmers have a long history of adjusting their practices in response to emerging science, and we will watch to see if further studies verify the results reported here. It’s important to note that most of the steps the study suggests are already underway. Farmers want to use the appropriate amounts of fertilizer and have long relied on expertise from the University of California in making those applications.”

While the study focused on agricultural applications of nitrogen, imprudent use of the fertilizer on garden, lawns, and landscapes also can represent a significant source of non-point nitrogen pollution. For these areas, focus first on cultural practices, and if fertilizer is needed based on a soil test, use Beyond Pesticides list of organic certified fertilizers to choose a soil amendment that, in an organic system, is not likely to result in pollution problems. And to support a healthier future for farming and safer, cleaner air for those living in and around agricultural communities, support organic practices by buying organic.

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

Source: Science Advances, Fresno Bee, ScienceNews,

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2018) Scientists at the European Institute for the Biology of Aging are finding new information about how Parkinson’s disease manifests itself after exposure to the herbicide paraquat, in hopes of finding ways to prevent the progression of the disease. Despite a well-established body of scientific literature linking the paraquat to Parkinson’s, and a ban on the use of the chemical in the European Union that dates back to 2007, its use is still permitted in the U.S. Many health groups, including Beyond Pesticides and organizations like the Michael J Fox Foundation are calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stop the use of paraquat by denying its upcoming reregistration.

Published in the journal Cell Reports, this new research on Parkinson’s investigates the impact of “senescent” cells in the body. Senescent cells are those which, despite being able to divide, stop doing so in response to stress. This is an anti-cancer mechanism, as stress would otherwise cause the cells to multiply unchecked and create malignancies. Researchers suspected that despite the benefit of stopping cancer, senescent cells may be causing other problems in the body. Rather than dying, these cells can cause inflammation in the area around where the cell became senescent.  Scientists focused in on one particular type of senescent cell, the astrocyte, which are essentially cells that send and receive neurons in the brain. It was hypothesized that senescent astrocytes could be causing localized inflammation that harms the neurons associated Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s is characterized by the death of neurons associated with dopamine production. While paraquat has long been associated with the direct death of these neurons, this new research shows that additional neurological impacts may be at play.

Scientists carried out different investigations to test the impact of senescent astrocytes on the development of Parkinson’s. First, they compared human brain tissue between Parkinson’s patients and those without the disease. Compared to those that never contracted Parkinson’s, individuals with the disease showed biomarkers associated with higher levels of senesced astrocytes. Researchers then looked at whether paraquat could cause senescence in a lab-cultured human astrocyte. Not only did paraquat stop astrocyte cell proliferation, it did better at inducing senescence than hydrogen peroxide and other traditional medical methods of inducing astrocyte senescence. Scientists found that, in line with epidemiological data that shows greater risk for Parkinson’s from chronic, low dose exposure than acute, one-time exposure, exposing the cultured astrocytes to paraquat for a longer time at a lower dose resulted in a greater number of senesced cells.

A final test was conducted on laboratory mice. After exposing mice to levels of paraquat indicated in the literature to result in Parkinson’s disease symptoms, results traced a very similar response to the human astrocyte cell culture. Senescent astrocytes increased after paraquat exposure, and mice displayed increased difficulties in movement and motor function. However, when researchers used a drug to flush senescent cells from the substantia nigra, the area of the brain where domapine-producing cells are located, the Parkinson’s-like symptoms of paraquat exposure subsided. “They are almost indistinguishable from the healthy mice,” said Marco Demaria, PhD, to The Guardian.

“As far as we know, this is the first time it’s been demonstrated in any neurodegeneration model that ablating [removing] senescent cells actually has an effect on disease progression,” said study co-author Julie Anderson, PhD to The Scientist. However, Dr. Anderson also noted to TheScientist that, “right now, we don’t know specifically what it is about paraquat that is inducing the senescence within the astrocytes.”

This complex study provides a route to potentially treat not only Parkinson’s but other diseases where senescent cells may play a role, such as ALS and Alzheimer’s. Future research will need to uncover how to flush out specific senescent cells while leaving others, which may be valuable in other areas, such as healing wounds, alone. “We know the cells we want to target, but at the moment we don’t have the therapeutics to do that,” said Dr. Demaria to The Guardian. “We cannot yet only target the bad cells.”

While the treatment developed by researchers in this study is promising, a better approach to reducing and eliminating the spread of pesticide-related diseases is to simply take the chemical off the market. Any products linked to devastating diseases such as ALS, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s have no place in our environment. While paraquat’s use is restricted to certified applicators in the U.S., it can still be applied to agricultural land. Despite a ban on the chemical in Europe and a planned phase-out of use in China, over seven million lbs of paraquat were applied to 15 million acres of American farmland in 2015.

Support efforts to ban the continued use of paraquat. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently reviewing safety concerns about the chemical, but without public involvement, the agency’s decision could be similar to its continued allowance of another neurotoxic pesticide – chlorpyrifos. Keep up to date with Beyond Pesticides’ action alerts for updates, and for more information on the link between pesticides and Parkinson’s, see the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database section on Parkinson’s disease.

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

Source: The Guardian, The Scientist, Cell Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, January 31, 2018) Woolworths, one of Australia’s largest retailers, has decided to stop selling neonicotinoid products (neonics) linked to global declines in bee populations. This is the latest retailer in Australia to announce commitments to stop supplying the bee-toxic products.

After thousands of Australians signed a petition calling on retailers to stop selling insecticides containing neonicotinoids, Woolworth announced it has, in fact, succumbed to public pressure and would join Bunnings Warehouse, Mitre 10 and Coles stores in pulling neonic products from their shelves. The week prior, retail chain Bunnings announced it would pull all items containing neonicotinoids from their shelves. Woolworth said it would stop selling the products by June 2018. The retail commitments come as a result of efforts launched by global consumer group SumOfUs that called on Australian retailers to stop selling insecticide products containing neonicotinoids, including the popular home and garden product, Confidor, which has been stocked by Woolworths and contains imidacloprid as the active ingredient.

According to Australia’s The New Daily, about one-third of Australian fruit and vegetable crops are reliant on pollination. Speaking on the ban of neonic products, Katja Hogendoorn, PhD, of University of Adelaide, who researches the behavioral ecology and evolution of native bees, is quoted as saying there was “no doubt pesticides often kill bees. Having a beautiful garden is a luxury. Bees are not, they are essential,” Dr. Hogendoorn said. “The banning of neonicotinoids for home gardeners by Bunnings and Mitre 10 is a great development. I hope the other companies follow suit.”

The Australian government undertook a review of neonicotinoids and the health of honey bees in 2013, which found that “the introduction of the neonicotinoids has led to an overall reduction in the risks to the agricultural environment from the application of insecticides,” according to the Guardian

In the U.S., Walmart and True Value announced last year that they will be phasing out neonic pesticides from all retail supply chains. This follows 2015 commitments by Home Depot, the world’s largest home-improvement chain, that it will no longer use neonic pesticides in 80 percent of its flowering plants, and that it will complete its phase-out in plants by 2018. This was preceded by Lowe’s commitment to phase out the sale of neonic products within 48 months. Several regional garden stores are also working with suppliers to discontinue the use of neonicotinoids: Behnke Nurseries Co. in Maryland, Bachmans, MN, Cavano’s Perennials, MD, Blooming Nursery, OR.

Research on neonics has been consistent in linking their use to reduced learning in bees, as well as other impacts, such as those on colony size, and reproductive success. Studies looking at effects on birds reports that songbirds exposed to widely used insecticides, like neonicotinoids, fail to properly orient themselves for migration, the first such study that adds weight to arguments that pesticides are a likely cause in the decline of migratory bird populations.  U.S. beekeepers lost an unsustainable 33% of their hives between 2016 and 2017. Neonics are also detected regularly in the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms. A new report from the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) finds neonic contamination of the Great Lakes that threatens aquatic life.

EPA has already released the preliminary pollinator assessment for the neonicotinoids that identified risks to pollinators from a variety of uses on agricultural crops. The aquatic assessment for imidacloprid, also released last year, finds that imidacloprid threatens the health of U.S. waterways with significant risks to aquatic insects and cascading effects on aquatic food webs. As a result of risks to aquatic organisms, the Canadian pesticide regulatory agency has recommended banning imidacloprid, a decision on which has been delayed. In Europe, a recent survey finds that streams across the United Kingdom (UK) are contaminated with neonics. The European Commission met on December 12 and 13, 2017 to decide on a proposal to extend the 2013 neonicotinoid ban to all outdoor crops, but this decision was delayed. The issue is expected to be on the agenda again in early 2018. The UK government has reversed its previous stance on neonicotinoids, now saying that it should be banned due to their harm to pollinators.

Beyond Pesticides released Poisoned Waterways, a report which documents the persistence of neonicotinoids in U.S. waterbodies and the danger they cause to aquatic organisms, resulting in complex cascading impacts on the aquatic food web. The report also highlights current regulatory failures of EPA aquatic standards, which continue to underestimate risks to sensitive species due to a reliance on test protocols that do not reflect real-world exposures or susceptibilities. Aquatic standards, which have been underestimating risks to sensitive species due to a reliance on test protocols, do not reflect real-world exposures or susceptibilities.

Eliminating the sale of harmful pesticides does not mean that retailers will have nothing left to sell their customers. Beyond Pesticides released The Well-Stocked Hardware Store, an online toolkit that identifies organic compatible products for hardware stores seeking to find replacement products that can be used with an organic system approach to land management. Beyond Pesticides highlights the actions of Eldredge Lumber, a hardware store in Maine, through the video Making the Switch. “You’re protecting the environment, your family, your children and grandchildren, and your neighbors. Nobody wants to have pesticides drifting into their front or rear yard, and people are just loving it, they’re feeding into it. I couldn’t be happier,” says owner Scott Eldredge in the video.

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

Source: The Guardian; The New Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, January 30, 2018) New data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reveals the year-round presence of neonicotinoids (neonics) in the Great Lakes – the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. Neonics, which are highly toxic to aquatic organisms and pollinators, are prevalent in the tributaries of the Great Lakes with concentrations and detections increasing during planting season. This new data adds to burgeoning demand for a federal ban of these insecticides in order to safeguard vulnerable aquatic ecosystems and pollinators.

The study, “Year-round presence of neonicotinoid insecticides in tributaries to the Great Lakes, USA,” sampled ten major tributaries to the Great Lakes from October 2015 to September 2016. Neonicotinoids were detected in every month sampled. At least one neonicotinoid was detected in 74 percent of the samples, with 10 percent of samples containing three neonicotinoids. The most frequently detected neonicotinoid was imidacloprid (53%), followed by clothianidin (44%), thiamethoxam (22%), acetamiprid (2%), and dinotefuran (1%).

The detections of clothianidin and thiamethoxam are significantly correlated with the percentage of agricultural land use. Similarly, concentrations increased in the spring and summer months when the planting of neonic-coated seeds and broadcast applications are the highest. For instance, in the agriculturally dominated basin (corn and soybean) along the Maumee River, Ohio, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam are ubiquitously detected in all water samples collected within the basin at the highest recorded for the study; maximum individual neonicotinoid concentration is 330 ng L⁻¹ and maximum total neonicotinoid concentration is 670 ng L⁻¹; median detected individual neonicotinoid concentration is 7.0 to 39 ng L⁻¹. Alternatively, imidacloprid detections significantly increase as the percent of the urbanization increases, where home gardeners and golf courses use neonicotinoid turf and garden products.

Prior to the study, little was known about the chemicals’ presence in the Great Lakes region. From October 2015 to September 2016, USGS researchers took monthly samples from the following rivers that all drain into the Great Lakes: Manitowoc River (WI), Grand River (MI), St. Joseph River (MI), Indiana Harbor Canal (IN), Saginaw River (MI), River Rouge (MI), Maumee River (OH), Cuyahoga River (OH), Genesee River (NY), and Bad River (WI). Michelle Hladik, PhD, lead author of the new study and a research chemist at the USGS, said the major risk of these chemicals is to aquatic insects—an effect that could ripple up the food chain. “If these pesticides are affecting aquatic insects, causing lower populations, it could affect the food chain by removing a food source” for fish, she said.

Neonicotinoids are the most widely used insecticides in the U.S. and have been linked to neurological and immune system impairments in honey bees and other pollinator declines. However, emerging science is also showing that these chemicals are also highly toxic to aquatic organisms, especially aquatic insects on which whole ecosystems rely. Declines in these organisms can, therefore, have catastrophic results for organisms that depend on them for food, including fish and birds.

Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released preliminary ecological (non-pollinator) assessments for the neonicotinoids clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran and the terrestrial ecological assessment for imidacloprid, finding that these pesticides pose both acute and chronic risks to aquatic life and birds. Treated seeds are identified as posing the highest dietary risks to birds, confirming previous research that neonics are highly hazardous not only to bees, but also, to birds, aquatic life, and other non-target organisms. EPA has already released the preliminary pollinator assessment for the neonics, which identifies risks to pollinators from a variety of uses on agricultural crops. The aquatic assessment for imidacloprid, also released last year, finds that it threatens the health of U.S. waterways with significant risks to aquatic insects and cascading effects on aquatic food webs.

Neonics are detected regularly in the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms. As a result of risks to aquatic organisms, the Canadian pesticide regulatory agency has recommended banning imidacloprid, a decision that has been delayed. In Europe, a recent survey finds that streams across the United Kingdom (UK) are contaminated with neonics. The Beyond Pesticides report Poisoned Waterways documents the persistence of neonicotinoids in U.S. waterbodies and the danger they cause to aquatic organisms, resulting in complex cascading impacts on the aquatic food web. The report also highlights current regulatory failures of EPA aquatic standards, which continue to underestimate risks to sensitive species, due to a reliance on test protocols that do not reflect real-world exposures or susceptibilities.

Take Action: Tell EPA that neonics pose unacceptable risks to pollinators, aquatic life, and birds! And, ask your Congressional delegation push EPA to stop the use of neonicotinoids.

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

Source: Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, January 29, 2018) Scientists, public health managers, and others charged with protecting the health of the public and the environment at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are being encouraged to exit the agency –as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt plans to meet his goal of cutting agency staff and programs by 50 percent.

Tell your Congressional delegation that EPA’s staff and budget cuts are false economy!

Aides to Mr. Pruitt confirmed to the Washington Examiner that by the end of President Trump’s first term, the agency’s staff will be cut by nearly half. Administrator Pruitt told the Washington Examiner he was “proud” of his efforts to dismantle –some say cripple— the very agency he leads. This is false economy. It endangers the American public and its air, land, water, and biodiversity.

EPA is responsible for enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act, with a goal of making the nation’s waters fishable and swimmable. EPA enforces the Clean Air Act, which has cleaned up American cities, reducing illness and property damage from smog. And EPA is responsible for overseeing the clean-up of contaminated sites, thus preventing further pollution and illness.
The agency also regulates pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

All of EPA’s programs require the application of science to public policy. Among the people who are being encouraged to retire —via “buyouts” and attractive retirement benefits to incentivize exits— are more than 200 scientists and nearly 100 environmental protection specialists.

Since the Trump administration took office, more than 700 employees have left EPA. According to the Washington Examiner, as of January 3, 2018, the EPA had 14,162 employees. In fiscal year 1988, when Ronald Reagan was President, the EPA employee level was 14,440. Twenty-three percent of EPA employees are currently eligible to retire with full benefits, and another 4 percent can retire at the end of 2018. Additionally, another 20 percentwill be eligible to retire in the next five years. Taken together, nearly 50 percent of EPA staff will be encouraged to leave, in one way or another, over the next five years. One administration official is quoted, in the Washington Examiner, as saying, “We’re happy to be at Reagan-level employment numbers and the future retirements show a preview of how low we could get during this administration. It would be fair to say that anywhere from 25 to 47 percent of EPA could retire during this administration.”

EPA has been plagued with budget constraints for many years, but now, with such drastic cuts (both personnel and budgetary), programs spearheaded by EPA to protect air, water, people, and wildlife from toxic pollution will suffer —a goal made clear by the Trump Administration. Eliminating resources needed to prevent problems means that more money will need to be spent repairing damage and treating disease.

Although, as documented by Beyond Pesticides, EPA’s regulation of pesticides is flawed, the agency plays a critical role in reviewing science and implementing laws protecting human health and the environment. Science itself has been under attack by the Trump Administration, as evidenced by its issuance of scientific grant and hiring freezes at EPA and other agencies nationwide, along with a ban on science communications through social media platforms. Under a dismantled EPA, experts say that even the limited advances made will be undermined. For instance, the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, which endangers children, was proposed to be revoked in 2015 due to findings and recommendations of EPA’s own scientists and a 2016 Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). However, one of Administrator Scott Pruitt’s first acts in office was to rescind the proposal, claiming more evidence was needed.

Though environmentalists and public health experts have criticized EPA for lax or inadequate regulation of pesticides, the clear attacks on public health and the environment through proposed budget cuts, by the Trump administration and EPA’s Mr. Pruitt, demand urgent action.

Tell your Congressional delegation to hold the line on EPA’s budget to protect health, resources, and the economy!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 26, 2018) Triclosan may be on its way out in soaps and disinfectants, but its presence on toothbrushes could stick around for a long time, according to research published in Environmental Science and Technology by a group of scientists from University of Massachusetts, Amherst (UMass Amherst). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of over the counter triclosan-containing soap in 2016, and late last year extended the ban to include health care and hospital settings, but the toxic antibacterial can still be found in toothpaste and other consumer products. Many may have have checked their toothpaste label and switched to a non-triclosan toothpaste after the recent news, but scientists say that exposure to this persistent chemical may continue through toothbrushes, if triclosan toothpaste was previously used.

To test triclosan absorption while brushing, researchers purchased 22 different toothbrushes, each with different components, from bristles only, to those with polishing cups, gum protectors, or tongue cleaners. Different toothpastes, including six with and 15 without triclosan, were also used.  A mixture used to imitate saliva was added to toothpaste and put into a vial that was then brushed with different toothbrushes over a 3 month period – the recommended average life of a toothbrush. The level of triclosan remaining on each toothbrush after brushing was determined by subtracting the amount originally applied by the amount that ended up in the toothpaste/saliva mixture after brushing.

Researchers found that most brushes did accumulate triclosan during the brushing process. However, those with additional components, such as polishing cups, tongue cleaners, or gum protectors, took in more triclosan than a regular brush-head toothbrush. Triclosan was initially absorbed at higher rates during the first several brushes, with a general decrease over the three month brushing period. However, toothbrushes with gum protectors, which are marketed to children to protect their sensitive gums, showed a more sustained absorption of triclosan over time when compared to other brush heads.

Triclosan is highly toxic and related to a number of human health impacts. The chemical has been widely detected in the human bodies, with one study showing 100% of pregnant women in Brooklyn, NY testing positive for the chemical in their urine. Triclosan can to pass from a pregnant mother to her fetus, and the chemical’s ability to disrupt the endocrine (hormone) system has led to concerns over its potential to complicate fetal growth and development.  Although originally purported to be a solution to tough bacteria, studies have found the opposite to be true. Its inability to be filtered by water treatment plants means that it finds its way into local rivers and streams, where research shows it alters stream communities and actually increases bacterial resistance.  Individuals exposed to triclosan are, in fact, more likely to carry worrisome staph bacteria. Triclosan contributes broadly to the worldwide crisis in bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Given this overwhelming evidence of danger, it is no surprise that over 200 scientists from around the world called on limits to the use of the chemical last year.

While those first hearing about the hazards that triclosan poses may take a second look at their toothpaste package and decide to change brands, UMass research indicates the need to go a step further. Triclosan absorbed into toothbrush heads was in fact released back into the mixture when switching from a triclosan to a non-triclosan toothpaste.

Thus, the only way to avoid triclosan exposure after using it on a toothbrush is to throw it away and purchase a new toothbrush or brush head. While limited data has shown that triclosan may alleviate some issues concerning gingivitis, there are viable alternatives, such as essential oils, such as thymol, menthol, and eucolyptol, that can do a good job at addressing gum disease without putting one at risk of other health effects.

The Colgate Total line of toothpastes remain the most popular brand of triclosan-containing toothpastes, however consumers should read the labels on their toothpaste packages to ensure their product does not contain this harmful chemical.

As FDA phases out triclosan in hand soaps, and consumers become more aware of the product in popular toothpastes, a range of concerning uses still remain. While FDA regulates personal cosmetics, EPA regulates other consumer goods, such as clothing, school products, like pencils, kitchenware, and other items where triclosan may be incorporated into the product in order to sell it as “antimicrobial.” Avoid items that use these keywords or indicate they contain Microban, as it is likely to contain triclosan or another hazardous antibacterial.

If you find triclosan in a product you use, take a stand against by telling that retailer to stop using triclosan products. To assist, Beyond Pesticides has a sample letter available for you to send. And for more information, including additional toxicity information and a comprehensive timeline of Beyond Pesticides fight to remove triclosan from the marketplace, see the article FDA 2016 Decision and History on the triclosan program page.

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

Source: ScienceNewsforStudents

(Beyond Pesticides, January 25, 2018) Monsanto’s herbicide dicamba, widely used on genetically engineered crops, will be prohibited from use in agriculture from April 16 to October 31, 2018 in Arkansas, following a vote this week by the state’s Legislative Council. Action by lawmakers was the last step needed to make the ban official after the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB) voted last year to continue a temporary ban on the drift and damage-prone herbicide into 2018. The ban is a win for farmers and health advocates who have suffered from drift, health effects, and crop damage as a result of widespread dicamba use, as over 29,000 people, including many Beyond Pesticides supporters, voiced their support for ASPB’s proposal when it was announced in October.

Prior to the vote by the Arkansas Legislative Council lawmakers had delayed a vote on the ban, sending the proposal back to ASPB for review and potential revision. Under state law, the Legislative Council, which acts as a decision making body when the state legislature is not in session, must either approve or disapprove of regulations promulgated by ASPB; lawmakers cannot amend ASPB’s rules. Despite concerns from lawmakers friendly to the chemical industry, ASPB refused to revise its proposal, and sent it back again to the Legislative Council for an up or down vote. “The Plant Board give us some very good scientific information that they had studied and worked on for a long period of time, and I think the members realized that,” said State Senator Bill Sample (R), co-chairman of the Legislative Council to the Baxter Bulletin. Senator Sample had first backed efforts to revise the plan before voting in favor of its passage earlier this week.

As the state begins to enforce its ban, a lawsuit filed by Monsanto attempts to halt the ban remains in the courts. “We’ve committed to growers and our customers that we will pursue (the lawsuit) until it is complete to see if we can’t help them have access to modern technology and have the maximum amount of choice,” said Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy to the Associated Press. Unfortunately for farmers, it is evident that Monsanto’s drive to provide greater access to its products is what resulted in the current crisis in the first place.

Weed resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready genetically engineered (GE) crops, developed to tolerate repeated sprayings of Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate throughout the growing season, led the company to reach for older, more toxic chemicals to incorporate into their new line of GE cropping systems. Glyphosate-tolerant corn and soy led to a rash of invasive weeds developing the same tolerance in farmer’s fields, leading to increases in labor and cost. Rather than encourage a greater emphasis on cover cropping, crop rotation, and alternative weed management techniques developed successfully by the organic industry, the company developed its new line of products based on an herbicide that was first registered in 1967 – dicamba.

The company released new seeds developed to tolerate dicamba, however it did so without a companion herbicide it was also developing, which was purported to present less issues with herbicide drift. Many believed the source of widespread reports of drift and damaged fields stemmed from farmers using older, off-label versions of dicamba on new GE seeds. The company eventually released its companion herbicide “Xtend,” a combination of glyphosate and dicamba, but reports of crop damage from drift continued. From Texan winegrowers, to Missouri peach farmers, the dicamba crisis has pitted neighbor against neighbor. In late 2016, NPR reported that a fight over dicamba damage led to the murder of one farmer in Arkansas.Despite Monsanto’s claim that its new Xtend herbicide wouldn’t include the drift problems dicamba is well known for, research by weed scientists found that the product does volatize enough to cause drift damage.

Now, Monsanto has two strategies in motion. First, sue to attempt to delay or eliminate any state-level action. Second, offer to pay farmers more than half the cost of the herbicide per acre in order to get them to continue using its toxic cropping system. With predictions that over 40 million acres will be planted with dicamba-tolerant soy in 2018, action by other states to restrict the use of dicamba is needed now. Restrictions are in place or being considered in a number of states, including Missouri, North Dakota, and Minnesota.

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

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

Source: The Baxter Bulletin, Memphis Daily News

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2018) Poor nutrition coupled with exposure to a notorious class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids act synergistically to significantly reduce the survival of honey bees and their colonies, according to research published by scientists from University of California, San Diego (UCSD). This is the first study to delve into the real-world effects pesticide exposure can have on honey bees also subject to nutritional stress, a common occurrence in the wild. The outcome of this research highlights the weaknesses of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) testing regime for registering pesticides, which does not account for the complex ecology surrounding catastrophic declines in honey bee and other wild pollinator populations.

UCSD scientists looked at two of the most popular neonicotinoids, chlothianidin and thiamethoxam, to investigate how realistic levels of exposure to the chemicals interacted with varying levels of available food. High and low levels of both chemicals, 1/5 and 1/25 of the LD50 (amount at which 50% of honey bees exposed would die) were added to sugar syrup solution containing a range of different nutrition levels. Sugar syrup, which mimics nectar and honey, is a critical source of carbohydrates for honey bees. The bees studied were either allowed to freely forage on sugar solution, or were limited to only a certain quantity of the syrup. Within those two groups, the richness of the sugar solution was broken down to three categories: rich (50% sugar/water), intermediate (32.5% sugar to water), or poor (15% sugar to water). Scientists also investigated honey bee survival based on a no-sugar solution containing only water. All of these scenarios were field-realistic, as honey bees will often go through periods of little to no nutrition at the beginning and end of the growing season, and during winter when honey stores may run out.

The results of the study provide clear evidence of synergistic interactions between nutritional availability and pesticide exposure. In general, bees fed high levels of the neonicotinoids had significantly lower survival rates than both control bees and those fed lower levels of the chemicals in their food. Bees that were limited to only a certain quantity of syrup, whether that syrup contained rich or poor levels of sugar to water, also showed reduced survival. When bees were able to freely forage on sugar solution spiked with insecticide, both intermediate and poor levels of sugar to water reduced survival. In only one instance were significant declines not recorded – when bees were provided rich sugar syrup they could freely forage on. Even when exposed to high or low levels of the neonicotinoids, these bees did not exhibit significantly reduced survival. Even bees fed no nutrients (only water) fared better than those receiving some nutrients spiked with insecticides. Lead author of the study, Simone Tosi, PhD, noted, “Our results provide the first demonstration that these stressors can synergistically interact and cause significant harm to animal survival.”

Of most significance to the ongoing pollinator crisis, the authors note that, when EPA requests studies on the impact of these chemicals on pollinators, it provides what would be classified in the study as a rich sugar solution (50% sugar/water), and allows bees to freely forage on the mixture. Thus, EPA’s tests would never capture the effects recorded in the new study, despite the fact that nutritional stressors are very common in the course of a honey bee and its colony’s life. “These findings should cause us to rethink our current pesticide risk assessment procedures, which, based upon our findings, may underestimate the toxic effects of pesticides on bees,” said Dr. Tosi.

Outside the ongoing pollinator crisis, the results of the study could conceivably apply to all animals. Co-author James Nieh, PhD, indicated that this research “may have even broader implications beyond honey bees because prior studies have not demonstrated a negative synergistic effect of pesticides and poor nutrition in animals.”

For many, it is likely common sense that a nutrient poor diet coupled with exposure to toxic chemicals leads to reduced survival. However, unless this issue is addressed in honey bees, it could very well be humans that are subject to a similar situation. A study published in 2015 by scientists at the University of Vermont and Harvard University found that the decline of pollinators, and thus pollination services, could lead to a devastating impact on diet and health, particularly for children and women in developing countries. Not only do pollinators contribute to 1 in 3 bites of food, their services help grow the most nutrient-dense fruits and vegetables available on the planet. Without them, diets would be limited to bland foods like corn and grains, with little nutrients- ultimately, as can be inferred from the present study, increasing risk of disease and death.

Stop the ongoing annihilation of pollinator populations by forgoing the use of toxic chemicals in your own yard, and encouraging local, state, and national governments to do the same. Plant pollinator friendly habitat to support existing populations as you work toward pesticide reform goals. Get ideas about what to plant around your home or business through the Bee Protective Habitat Guide, and find pollinator-friendly seeds through Beyond Pesticides’ Directory. Let us know  that you are interested in working on this issue by indicating that you want a pesticide-free community today. Plan on meeting one of the authors of this study, Jame Nieh, PhD, at the upcoming 36th National Pesticide Forum, Organic Neighborhoods: For healthy children, families, and ecology, April 13-14, 2018 in Irvine, California.

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

Source: Science Daily

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2018) The European Parliament decided to set up a special committee to look into the European Union’s (EU) authorization procedure for pesticides, in light of the controversial review of Monsanto’s glyphosate. The special committee is to assess the authorization procedure for pesticides in the EU and potential failures in how substances are scientifically evaluated and approved.

The Special Committee on Plant Protection Products, which will have 30 members and a nine-month term, was voted in last week to assess the authorization procedure for pesticides in the EU; potential failures in how substances are scientifically evaluated and approved; the role of the European Commission in renewing the glyphosate license; possible conflicts of interest in the approval procedure; and the role of EU agencies, and whether they are adequately staffed and financed to fulfill their obligations. It is scheduled to meet for the first time in March.

In a joint statement, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) Marc Tarabella and Eric Andrieu, who called for the establishment of a committee last April, welcomed the move which will allow the Parliament to lay the foundations for “transparency and independence” of the European Union’s decision-making process. “The glyphosate case has revealed the structural failures of the European Commission,” added Mr. Andrieu and Mr. Tarabella.

The new committee is responsive to concerns raised about the risk posed by the herbicide glyphosate, which was granted renewal last November for just 5 years, after the European Commission’s initial failure to pass 15 and 10-year old renewal proposals. This came after months of controversy over the role of glyphosate’s maker, Monsanto, in the decision-making process, and its influence over scientific reports used to support glyphosate’s review. It was reported that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) copied dozens of pages from a Monsanto study in reaching its conclusion that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” EFSA’s recommendation was supposed to provide an independent analysis for EU member states when deciding to renew the chemical.

Both EFSA and the German regulatory authority, known as the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), have been accused of working closely with Monsanto to sway the EU’s final decisions on the controversial chemical, and of using material directly from Monsanto in their reports over the safety of glyphosate without making clear that the data came from Monsanto itself. In 2015, reports indicated that BfR based its glyphosate renewal assessment almost solely on industry science and classified industry reports from an industry greenwashing group called the Glyphosate Task Force. It was also found that three scientists on Germany’s scientific panel on pesticides work for the pesticide industry.

Molly Scott Cato, MEP, who sits on the European parliament’s agriculture committee, said the decision is a “victory” for Green groups in Europe, who have been pushing for a special committee to investigate the decision-making process for the renewal of glyphosate’s license in Europe.

“Greens have serious concerns about whether the rules have been respected during the decision-making process for glyphosate and why scientific studies demonstrating that glyphosate is dangerous have been ignored,” Ms. Cato said. “This committee will have a vital role in establishing how we can make the decision-making and evaluation processes transparent and objective. Secret science is not science: its time to shine a spotlight on who is pulling the strings when it comes to authorizing these potentially toxic and environmentally damaging products.”

Glyphosate and its maker Monsanto have been embroiled in controversy after the 2015 the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.” Since then, Monsanto has been working overtime to discredit IARC and push its science on to regulatory agencies in the U.S. and Europe. Last year, the European Parliament banned Monsanto lobbyists from committee meetings and digital resources, as well as prohibiting Monsanto lobbyists from meeting with any Member of the European Parliament. This was an attempt to limit Monsanto’s influence on the EU review process amid mounting public pressure.

The New York Times reported on Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and U.S. federal regulators that suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research on glyphosate, which was later attributed to academics. In December 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declared that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic, conflicting with IARC’s 2015 classification. Some charge that EPA’s assessment relied heavily on industry studies to arrive at its conclusion, and ignored its own guidelines for assessing cancer risks.

Fight back against Monsanto’s attempt to undermine the scientific and democratic process by getting involved at the local level. Work to pass policies that restrict not only glyphosate but the entire range of toxic synthetic pesticides registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Beyond Pesticides has resources to help you get started, including an organizing guide, model policy, and list of less toxic, organic compatible products. For more information on IARC’s glyphosate cancer classification and the IARC review process, see Beyond Pesticides’ article in our newsletter Pesticides and You.

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

Source:
Farming UK
NewEurope

(Beyond Pesticides, January 22, 2018) The organophosphate pesticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species and adversely modify their critical habitats, according to the newly released report from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). By law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must not allow their use.

Tell EPA to ban chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon unless it can restrict uses to protect endangered species.

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), any agency action requires a finding that the action “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat.” The December 31, 2017 Biological Opinion from NMFS followed an ecological assessment that relied upon multiple lines of evidence to determine effects on species and their designated habitats.

These impacts include:
• “the direct and indirect toxicity of each chemical to aquatic taxa groups (e.g., fish, mammals, invertebrates);
• specific chemical characteristics of each pesticide (e.g., degradation rates, bioaccumulation rates, sorption affinities, etc.);
• expected environmental concentrations calculated for generic aquatic habitats
• authorized pesticide product labels;
• maps showing the spatial overlap of listed species’ habitats with pesticide use areas; and
• species’ temporal use of those lands and/or aquatic habitats on which each pesticide has permitted uses.”

The Biological Opinion finds, “[P]esticides containing chlorpyrifos are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 38 of the 77 listed species, and adversely modify 37 of the 50 designated critical habitats.” For malathion, 38 of 77 listed species are likely to be jeopardized and 37 of the 50 designated critical habitats adversely modified. Likewise, diazinon likely jeopardizes 25 of 77 listed species and adversely modifies 18 of the 50 designated critical habitats. Species affected include salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, coral, and sea turtles, as well as orcas and seals that depend on salmon as a food source.

This Biological Opinion, which resulted from a lawsuit filed against EPA in 2014 for failure to comply with the ESA, is in line with the 2016 findings by EPA that chlorpyrifos and malathion are “likely to adversely affect” 97% of listed and candidate species, and diazinon “likely to adversely affect” 79% of endangered species under the ESA. Although EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS when registering a pesticide, the agencies have been sued over the years for disregarding this requirement and failing to ensure adequate protections for endangered species. A 2013 report from the National Academy of Sciences identified deficiencies and provided recommendations for all the agencies involved in pesticide consultations.

Tell EPA to ban chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon unless it can restrict uses to protect endangered species.

The three organophosphates are highly toxic to mammals, fish, and aquatic invertebrates, and are used widely in agriculture, as well as on forested lands, and even in mosquito spraying. According to NMFS, current application of these pesticides produces aquatic concentrations that are likely to harm aquatic species, as well as contaminate their designated critical habitats. Species and their prey residing in shallow aquatic habitats proximal to pesticide-use sites are expected to be at greatest risk. NMFS made several risk-reduction recommendations, including no-spray buffer zones of more than 300 meters alongside habitats, and removal of high-risk label uses.

According to Earthjustice, federal inaction against these pesticides puts at risk billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Salmon and steelhead fishing in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Northern California is responsible for $1.25 billion in the regional economy, and supports more than 62,000 family wage jobs. But salmon populations have declined over the years due to damming activity, climate change, widespread habitat loss, and pesticide runoff. Scientists have found that, even at low levels, pesticides can cause the abnormal sexual development of salmon and impair their swimming ability, growth, development, behavior, and reproduction.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 19, 2018) Scientists, public health managers, and others charged with protecting the health of the public and the environment at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are being encouraged to exit the agency. This, as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt plans to meet his goal of cutting agency staff and programs by 50 percent.

Aides to Mr. Pruitt confirmed to the Washington Examiner that by the end of President Trump’s first term, the agency’s staff will be cut by nearly half. Administrator Pruitt told the Washington Examiner he was “proud” of his efforts to dismantle, some say cripple, the very agency he leads, which is responsible for enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the pesticide registration program the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Superfund toxic waste cleanup program, among others. By early 2021, Mr. Pruitt and his team are aiming to reduce the staff of what was nearly 15,000 to below 8,000. Among the people who are being encouraged to “retire” are more than 200 scientists and nearly 100 environmental protection specialists.

According to the Washington Examiner, as of January 3, 2018, the EPA has 14,162 employees. The last time EPA was at an actual employment level of 14,440 was in the fiscal year 1988 when Ronald Reagan was president. Twenty-three percent of EPA employees can retire with full benefits and another four percent can retire at the end of 2018. Additionally, another 20 percent of EPA employees will be eligible to “retire” in the next five years. Taken together, nearly 50 percent of EPA staff will be encouraged to “retire” in the next 5 years.

One administration official is quoted as saying, “We’re happy to be at Reagan-level employment numbers and the future retirements show a preview of how low we could get during this administration. It would be fair to say anywhere from 25 to 47 percent of EPA could retire during this administration.”

Late last year, Administrator Pruitt was on Capitol Hill to talk about, “The Mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” and a “Back to Basics” vision. However, EPA has been plagued with budget constraints for many years, but now with such drastic cuts, programs spearheaded by EPA to protect air, water, people and wildlife from toxic pollution will suffer – a goal made clear by the Administration. Without adequate staff, thorough vetting and oversight of pesticides products and their impacts under FIFRA for their impact on human health and the environment is likely to suffer, while giving a free pass to the industry. As the attorney general of Oklahoma before his appointment by President Trump to the highest EPA post, Mr. Pruitt, according to The New York Times, was a litigant in numerous lawsuits against the agency, challenging rules on air pollution, limits on mercury, efforts to reduce ozone pollution, protection of scenic vistas in certain national parks, a determination that greenhouse gas pollution endangers health and the environment, a  clean power plan intended to curb climate change, and a clean water rule.

Under a dismantled EPA, experts say that even the limited advances will be undermined. For instance, the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos that endangers children was proposed to be revoked in 2015 due to findings and recommendations of EPA’s own scientists and a 2016 Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). However, one of Administrator Scott Pruitt’s first acts in office was to rescind the proposal, claiming more evidence was needed.

While environmentalists and public health experts have criticized EPA for lax or inadequate regulation of pesticides, the clear attacks on public health and the environment through proposed budget cuts by the Trump administration and EPA Mr. Pruitt demands urgent action. Beyond Pesticides is collaborating with other organizations to protect an agency that Congress established to advance clean water, clean air, safe food, farmworker protection, and healthy natural resources.

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

Source: EWG Press Release, Washington Examiner

(Beyond Pesticides, January 18, 2018) Research published in early January 2018 has shown that — despite a partial ban on neonicotinoid insecticides instituted in 2014 — 25% of British honey is still contaminated with residue of these “potent, bee-killing” pesticides. The partial ban, which extended to flowering crops, such as oilseed rape (from which canola oil is made), was instituted by the European Union (EU) in response to evidence of serious threats to bee populations. Samples for this study came from beekeepers and were each from a single location.

After the partial ban went into effect, scientists had seen some reduction in the contamination rate of neonicotinoids in honey, from greater than 50% prior to the ban. This study demonstrates that these powerful pesticides nevertheless remain common in agricultural areas, posing serious threats to bees (and other pollinators). This discovery is likely to accelerate pressure on the EU to ban all outdoor use of neonicotinoids, with a vote coming perhaps as soon as in the next few months. “While the frequency of neonicotinoid contaminated samples fell once the EU ban was in place, our data suggest that these pesticides remain prevalent in the farming environment,” said Ben Woodcock, of the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

Neonicotinoids are insecticides that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death; thus, they are sometimes called “neurotoxins”. There is major concern about their role in pollinator decline. Neonicotinoids can be persistent in the environment, and when used as seed treatments, translocate to residues in pollen and nectar of treated plants. Despite these risks, they have come into extremely wide usage and therefore, have put pollinators at considerable risk.

Just a few months prior to the research on British honey, a different research project, published by the journal Science in October 2017, looked at pesticide residue in honey from every continent except Antarctica. It concluded that these chemicals, ubiquitous in the honey samples collected, represent a major risk to bees (and pollinators broadly). Because bees forage widely in their pursuit of nectar and pollen, they are regarded as excellent barometers of the degree of pesticide pollution in their range landscapes.

The study began as a “citizen science” project when researchers at the Botanical Garden of Neuchâtel, Switzerland asked for honey donations from around the world between 2012 and 2016. They received and sampled nearly 200 for the five main types of neonicotinoids, and found that 75% of the samples contained neonicotinoid residue. Those samples yielded an 86% contamination rate in North American samples (the highest rate among the represented regions), followed by 80% for Asia, 79% for Europe, and 57% for South America. Nearly half of the samples contained more than one of the insecticide compounds.

The research findings suggest that the loss of bees and impairment of bee health is strongly “associated with intensive land use, which exposes bees to pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids. The latter may harm bees directly and/or exacerbate threats from other chemicals, imported parasites and diseases, or habitat loss. . . . Most honeys sampled from around the world between 2012 and 2016 contain neonicotinoids at levels known to be neuroactive in bees.”

Professor Edward Mitchell of the University of Neuchâtel noted, “The striking finding is that 75% of our samples had measurable quantities. That was surprising to us, since our coverage included many remote areas, including oceanic islands.” He added, “If you look at the minimum concentration for which a significant negative impact on bees has been found, then 48% of our samples exceed this level.” Researchers indicated that those impacts on bees include impaired behavior, learning, and ultimately, success of colonies.

Dave Goulson, PhD, professor at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom (who was not part of the University of Neuchâtel study), said: “Entire landscapes all over the world are now permeated with highly potent neurotoxins, undoubtedly contributing to the global collapse of biodiversity. It is hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu: Rachel Carson was saying the same things more than 50 years ago, but we seem not to have learned any lessons. It is high time that we developed a global regulatory system for pesticides, to prevent such catastrophes being repeated over and over again.” Renowned neonicotinoid researcher Jean-Marc Bonmatin, PhD, explained to The Guardian, “The use of these pesticides runs contrary to environmentally sustainable agricultural practices. It provides no real benefit to farmers, decreases soil quality, hurts biodiversity and contaminates water, air and food. There is no longer any reason to continue down this path of destruction.”

Beyond Pesticides has been sounding the alarm on pesticide contamination for years, calling for more comprehensive testing and more protective regulation. Clearly, as seen in the cited studies on honey, halfway measures, such as a partial ban on a toxic pesticide, are not sufficient to get such pesticides out of the environment, the foods of pollinators, and the agricultural products that humans consume. (By contrast with the British partial ban and the absence of significant regulation in the United States, France has put in place a neonicotinoid ban that goes into effect in 2018 and is stronger than the current EU restrictions.) The case of the neonicotinoids exemplifies two critical problems with current U.S. registration procedures and risk assessment methods for pesticides: the reliance on industry-funded science that contradicts peer-reviewed studies and the insufficiency of current risk assessment procedures to account for sublethal effects of pesticides.

Intense concern in the past decade about impacts of pesticides on bee (and pollinator) populations has also focused on residues in human foods. The pervasive “greenwashed” labeling that appears on many products — including honey — uses words such as “natural” and “pure” to create the impression that there’s nothing “nasty” in the product. Yet, there are often contaminants in food products.

In 2016, Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association filed suit against Sioux Honey Association for the deceptive and misleading labeling of its Sue Bee and Aunt Sue’s honey brands — despite the knowledge that the bees producing their honey forage in fields or landscapes treated with toxic chemicals. The suit followed news that Sue Bee honey products labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural” tested positive for glyphosate residue. (Glyphosate, a known endocrine disruptor and, according to the World Health Organization, a probable human carcinogen, is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup® herbicide.)

Beyond Pesticides advocates that organic agriculture, which focuses on safe, effective alternatives to chemical pest control, is a huge part of the solution. The best way to avoid pesticide residues in food and beverages is to buy organic and support organic agriculture. Beyond Pesticides’ database, Eating with a Conscience (EWAC), provides information on the pesticides that may be present in the food we eat, and why food labeled “organic” is the wise choice. EWAC also includes information on the impacts of chemically intensive agriculture on farmworkers, water, and our threatened pollinators. In addition, local advocacy can change practices: more and more towns and cities are enacting local ordinances to limit or ban use of neonicotinoid pesticides, and in some cases, to boost habitat and/or adopt organic land care approaches to support pollinator health.

Source: The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, January 17, 2018) The organophosphate insecticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species and adversely modify their critical habitats, according to the newly released report from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The insecticide cholorpyrifos, whose ban was rescinded by the Trump Administration last year, despite overwhelming evidence of neurological and brain damage to children, is once again being shown to be too toxic for continued use.

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), any agency action requires a finding that it “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat.” The December 31, 2017 Biological Opinion from NMFS followed an ecological assessment that relied upon multiple lines of evidence to determine effects to species and their designated habitats. These include “the direct and indirect toxicity of each chemical to aquatic taxa groups (e.g. fish, mammals, invertebrates); specific chemical characteristics of each pesticide (e.g. degradation rates, bioaccumulation rates, sorption affinities, etc.); expected environmental concentrations calculated for generic aquatic habitats; authorized pesticide product labels; maps showing the spatial overlap of listed species’ habitats with pesticide use areas; and species’ temporal use of those lands and/or aquatic habitats on which each pesticide has permitted uses.”

The Biological Opinion finds, “[P]esticides containing chlorpyrifos are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 38 of the 77 listed species, and adversely modify 37 of the 50 designated critical habitats.” For malathion, 38 of 77 listed species are likely to be jeopardized and 37 of the 50 designated critical habitats adversely modified. Likewise, diazinon jeopardizes 25 of 77 listed species and adverse modifies 18 of the 50 designated critical habitats. Species affected include salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, coral, sea turtles, as well as orcas and seals that depend on salmon as a food source.

This Biological Opinion, which resulted from a from a lawsuit filed against EPA in 2014 for failure to comply with the ESA, is in line with the 2016 findings by EPA that chlorpyrifos and malathion are “likely to adversely affect” 97% of listed and candidate species and diazinon “likely to adversely affect” 79% of endangered species” under the ESA. Although EPA is required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS when registering a pesticide, the agencies have been sued over the years for disregarding this requirement and failing to ensure adequate protections for endangered species. A 2013 report from the National Academy of Sciences identified deficiencies and provided recommendations for all the agencies involved in pesticide consultations.

The three organophosphates are highly toxic to mammals, fish, and aquatic invertebrates, and are used widely in agriculture, forested lands, and even mosquito spraying. According to NMFS, current application of these pesticides produces aquatic concentrations that are likely to harm aquatic species as well as contaminate their designated critical habitats. Species and their prey residing in shallow aquatic habitats proximal to pesticide use sites are expected to be the most at risk. NMFS made several risk reduction recommendations including no-spray buffer zones of greater than 300m alongside habitats, and removal of high-risk label uses.

According to Earthjustice, federal inaction against these pesticides puts at risk billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Salmon and steelhead fishing in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Northern California is responsible for $1.25 billion to the regional economy and support more than 62,000 family wage jobs. But salmon populations have declined over the years due to damming activity, climate change, widespread habitat loss, and pesticide runoff.  Scientists have found that, even at low levels, pesticides can cause the abnormal sexual development of salmon and impair their swimming ability, growth, development, behavior, and reproduction.

Represented by the public interest law group Earthjustice, several stakeholder organizations including the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA), filed suit in January 2001 to force EPA to fulfill the distinct ESA requirements. Specifically, the lawsuit challenged EPA’s decision to register 54 pesticides without first consulting with federal fish biologists regarding the potential impact on protected salmon and steelhead species in the Northwest. The judge, in a lawsuit initiated in 2002, called EPA’s “wholesale non-compliance” with its ESA obligations “patently unlawful” and ordered the agency to consult with NMFS regarding adverse impacts on the Northwest runs. EPA’s failure to consult with FWS on the impacts of hundreds of pesticides known to be harmful to more than 200 listed species prompted a 2011 lawsuit.

NMFS had a Dec. 31, 2017 for issuing its Biological Opinion for the impact of chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon on listed and critical species in consultation with the EPA as a result of the 2014 lawsuit. But after the new Trump Administration was sworn in, Dow AgroSciences attempted to thwart the consultation process, and delay the final report.

Chlorpyrifos is highly neurotoxic and its agricultural uses were proposed to be revoked due to findings and recommendations of EPA’s own scientists and a 2016 Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). However, one of Administrator Scott Pruitt’s first acts in office was to rescind the proposal, claiming more evidence was needed. But the scientific literature is filled with evidence of chlorpyrifos’ impact on children’s developing brains and long-term impact on cognitive function, IQs and neurological disorders like ADHD and autism. Malathion and diazinon are also neurotoxic and harm wildlife like honey bees, other beneficial insects, and non-target wildlife.

The dangers that these highly toxic pesticides pose to species already at risk of extinction are unjustifiable in view of the success of organic crop production.

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

Source: Earthjustice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, January 16, 2018) In spite of findings that neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides pose both acute and chronic risks to pollinators, aquatic life, and birds, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking comment that could support their continued use. Comments are due by February 20, 2018. 

Tell EPA that neonics pose unacceptable risks to pollinators, aquatic life, and birds! And, ask your Congressional delegation push EPA to do the right thing.

Last month, EPA released preliminary ecological (non-pollinator) assessments for the neonicotinoids clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, and the terrestrial ecological assessment for imidacloprid, finding that these pesticides pose both acute and chronic risks to aquatic life and birds. Treated seeds are identified as posing the highest dietary risks to birds, confirming previous research that neonics are highly hazardous not only to bees, but also, to birds, aquatic life, and other non-target organisms. However, EPA’s assessments also cover spray treatments.

EPA opened the public comment period for these assessments on December 15, 2017. Along with outlining the risks identified in the assessments, the agency is especially requesting feedback on the benefits of continued use of the neonics on cotton and citrus crops, identified in last year’s pollinator assessments as posing risks to honey bees. In spite of evidence of long-term systemic exposures to non-target organisms, which supports a phase-out of these pesticides, EPA states, “We believe early input from the public will be helpful in developing possible mitigation options that may be needed to address risks to bees.” EPA believes that neonicotinoids are crucial for the management of the Asian citrus psyllid, an invasive pest that causes citrus greening, and of plant bugs and stink bugs in cotton. However, non-chemical, or biological, management methods have been successfully employed.

Tell EPA that neonics pose unacceptable risks to pollinators, aquatic life, and birds! Tell your Congressional delegation to push EPA to do the right thing.

EPA found that risks to certain birds from eating neonic-treated seeds exceed the agency’s level of concern by as much as 200-fold. For clothianidin, the agency finds that as few as 1–5 seeds of treated corn will be enough to exceed acute and chronic levels of concern for birds. Specifically, EPA states, “Dietary exposures from clothianidin treated seeds are noted to result in the highest acute and chronic risks from the terrestrial risk assessment to birds and mammals.” Clothianidin, which is widely used as a seed coating on millions of acres of planted corn and soybean crops, is also determined by EPA to be very highly toxic to other taxa, including shrimp and aquatic insects. Reproductive effects are observed in several freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates. Developmental effects have occurred in benthic invertebrates (those living at the bottom of water bodies).

EPA has already released the preliminary pollinator assessment for the neonics, which identifies risks to pollinators from a variety of uses on agricultural crops. The aquatic assessment for imidacloprid, also released last year, finds that it threatens the health of U.S. waterways with significant risks to aquatic insects and cascading effects on aquatic food webs.

Other neonics are also problematic. For example, for thiamethoxam, EPA finds, “Chronic risk concerns for aquatic insects result from exceedances of effect levels on larval survival. Effect levels are also exceeded frequently (in 10–29 years over a 30-year period) for foliar treatments, suggesting yearly variations (e.g., in weather) do not change risk potential.” And for dinotefuran, “A number of uses of dinotefuran have the potential for direct adverse effects to aquatic invertebrates on an acute and chronic basis based on an evaluation of multiple lines of evidence.”

As a result of risks to pollinators and aquatic organisms, regulators in Canada, the UK, and Europe have adopted or are considering bans on neonics. Research has consistently linked their use to reduced learning in bees, and as a contributing factor to reduced colony size, and reproductive success. U.S. beekeepers lost an unsustainable 33% of their hives between 2016 and 2017.

Studies on songbirds find that exposure to widely used insecticides such as neonicotinoids results in failure to orient properly for migration, thus adding weight to arguments that pesticides are a likely cause in the decline of migratory bird populations.

Neonics are also detected regularly in the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms. The Beyond Pesticides report Poisoned Waterways documents the persistence of neonicotinoids in U.S. waterbodies and the danger they cause to aquatic organisms, resulting in complex cascading impacts on the aquatic food web. The report also highlights current regulatory failures of EPA aquatic standards, which continue to underestimate risks to sensitive species, due to a reliance on test protocols that do not reflect real-world exposures or susceptibilities.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 12, 2018) Honey bees display a concerning attraction to the herbicide glyphosate and the fungicide chlorothalonil at certain concentrations, new research from scientists at the University of Illinois (UIL) reveals. Results are reminiscent of a 2015 study published in the journal Nature, which found that honey bees display a preference for foods treated with neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides implicated in global pollinator declines. Since the crisis became public knowledge in 2006, managed honey bees have experienced unsustainable levels of colony loss, and one in four species of native bees in North America and Hawaii are at risk of extinction. This new research adds to growing concerns that, while neonicotinoids continue to play a primary role in the pollinator crisis, their elimination would still leave a myriad of other toxic chemical threats to the recovery of these critical species, upon which so much of our food supply relies.

UIL scientists investigated honey bees’ preference for a range of pesticides as well as a number of naturally occurring chemicals that honey bees would likely encounter in the field. In the experiment, pollinators were put in a large enclosure and allowed to fly to different feeders stocked with either sugar syrup and the chemical being tested, or plain sugar syrup, which acted as a control.

Unsurprisingly, the naturally occurring chemical quercetin, indicative of pollen production in flowers, was the most attractive substance to honey bees at all concentrations tested. “That makes sense, because everything the honey bees eat has quercetin in it,” May Berenbaum, PhD, said in a UIL press release. “There’s quercetin in nectar, there’s quercetin in pollen. Quercetin is in honey and beebread, and it’s a reliable cue that bees use to recognize food.”

However, when allowing pollinators to forage on glyphosate-infused sugar syrup, honey bees prefer the concoction when concentrations were at 10 parts per billion, a dose likely to be encountered in the field, but not at greater amounts.  Likewise, at .5 and 50 parts per billion (ppb), honey bees prefer the chlorothalonil spiked sugar syrup over the control, but not at higher amounts of 500 ppb. “The bees are not only not avoiding this fungicide, they’re consuming more of it at certain concentrations,” Dr. Berenbaum said.

Glyphosate has been linked to impaired learning in honey bees, with evidence that field realistic doses of the chemical cause delays in the return of foraging honey bees to the hive. In regards to chlorothalonil, as far back as 2013, research identified exposure to the fungicide as a factor increasing the risk of honey bees contracting the deadly gut parasite Nosema ceranae. In 2015,  two studies identified fungicides, such as chlorothalonil, as more significant concerns to pollinator health that previously realized, leading David Goulson, Ph.D., a bee biologist at the University of Sussex, to say that the studies “suggest that the fungicides may be having more profound effects on bees than would have been expected from the standard lab toxicity studies,” and that the research “demonstrates very clearly how the cocktail of chemicals used in modern farming makes farmland an inhospitable place for bees.”

Subsequent research published in 2016 indicates that chlorothalonil has significant impacts on the gut microbiome of honey bees, reinforcing previous research that the chemical makes honey bees more susceptible to parasites and other diseases.  A late 2017 study by Cornell University researchers found that fungicide use, particularly chlorothalonil, was compounding risk and toxicity for U.S. bumblebee species, with scientists going as far as indicating that fungicides are likely playing a more significant role in declines of these species than previously realized.

Dr. Berenbaum has a reasonable explanation for why pollinators may choose to ingest substances that are hazardous to their health. “Honey bee foragers are gleaners,” she said. “They’re active from early spring until late fall, and no single floral source exists for them for that whole season. If they don’t have a drive to search out something new, that’s going to seriously compromise their ability to find the succession of flowers they need. Unnatural chemicals might be a signal for a new food.” Thus honey bees, not knowing any better, may be continuously testing the waters with novel chemicals in their environment.

While we can’t expect pollinators to know better, regulators in the U.S. and abroad should take heed and act now to protect these critical species from toxic exposure wherever the science identifies it. More information about the plight of pollinators can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage, where we track the latest science and policy developments on the pollinator crisis.

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

Source: UIL Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2018) A California court has halted a state program allowing pesticide spraying at schools, organic farms, and backyards across California because of inadequate public disclosure of the chemicals’ adverse effects. The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA) statewide “pest management” program required no site-specific analysis of risks before the application of 79 pesticides, including some known to cause cancer and birth defects and to be highly toxic to bees, butterflies, fish and birds.

Relating to the broad application of pesticide use allowances under the state’s required Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), issues of concern in the case included: i) a failure to conduct site-specific environmental impact asssessment, while allowing the “substantially similar” uses without environmental review; (ii) broad application of a PEIR to subsequent activities without a Notice of Determination ; (iii) includes an inadequate project description; (iv) a failure to adequately describe the baseline environmental conditions; (v) a failure to adequately analyze the Project’s environmental impacts (including biological, water, human health, and farming impacts); (vi) a failure to adequately analyze cumulative impacts; (vii) legally inadequate mitigation measures; (vii) a failure to consider a reasonable range of alternatives; and (viii) a failure comply with public agency consultation and notice requirements.

In a sweeping decision issued Monday, Judge Timothy M. Frawley ruled that CDFA failed to adequately review impacts or provide adequate notice of pesticide spraying. The agency also didn’t account for the full range of dangers caused by the program, including risks of contaminating water supplies and the cumulative danger of adding even more pesticides to the more than 150 million pounds of pesticides already being used in California each year.

“Federal and state pesticide registration laws do not provide adequate protection from pesticides for  environmental and health effects where they are used, and environmental impact reports (EIRs) fulfill an important oversight and review function for proposed pesticide uses,” said Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides. “Addtionally, pesticide registration laws have not forced an alternatives assessment, required under EIRs, which can determine whether there are less hazardous approaches, either products or practices, to a proposed pesticide application.” The findings of the court in this lawsuit are intended to improve the overall review and assessment of pesticide use.” he continued.

“We are thrilled that the court has ruled that the state does not have free rein to use pesticides as a first resort and hope that this decision will inspire the Department of Food and Agriculture to move toward sustainable pest-management practices that honor the public’s desire to make protecting the health of our communities and food supply the top priority,” said Nan Wishner of the California Environmental Health Initiative.

Pesticides used in the program include these dangerous chemicals:

• Chlorpyrifos, known to cause brain damage in children and to threaten 97 percent of endangered wildlife;
• Neonicotinoid pesticides that are highly toxic to pollinators like bees and aquatic invertebrates like crustaceans and mollusks;
• The toxic fumigant methyl bromide, which depletes the protective ozone layer;
• The chemical warfare agent chloropicrin, which causes genetic damage.

“California has to now take reasonable, site-specific steps to curb the harms of pesticides to our water supplies and imperiled species like salmon,” said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This ruling affirms that people should have a voice in which pesticides are used in their own neighborhoods.”

The court rejected the program’s provision allowing pesticide spraying anywhere in the state, anytime, without further environmental review or input from the public. The court also ruled that the California Department of Food and Agriculture relied on “unsupported assumptions and speculation” regarding the dangers of pesticides to bodies of water.

“It’s especially troubling that the state gave itself a blank check to spray people’s yards, exposing children and pets to a range of pesticides that can cause serious long-term problems for children, including cancer, asthma and IQ loss,” said Debbie Friedman, founder of MOMS Advocating Sustainability.

The ruling halts the program until the state develops a program that provides adequate notice and protection for the public. This decision also opens the door for the public to have an opportunity to learn about and comment on new pesticide treatments and treatment sites approved under the program, which could previously have been approved without public scrutiny or notice.

The state’s attorney told the court during the hearing that the Department of Food and Agriculture has already carried out more than 1,000 pesticide treatments since the program was approved in 2014.

“This ruling acknowledges that widespread spraying of neurotoxic chemicals across diverse areas of our state without adequately looking at immediate exposure problems for humans is bad enough, but also accounts for the impacts on our streams and lakes and the organisms that live there and that these waters often end up in our taps,” said Bill Allayaud, California director of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group.

The suit was brought by the City of Berkeley and eleven public-health, conservation and food-safety organizations: the Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group, California Environmental Health Initiative, MOMS Advocating Sustainability, Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Beyond Pesticides, Californians for Pesticide Reform and Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment. The plaintiffs are represented by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton, along with ATA Law Group.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2018) At the end of 2017, the City of Carlsbad, CA voted unanimously to adopt a policy prioritizing the use of organic and defined “least-toxic” pesticides to manage pest problems on city-owned and controlled property and public rights-of-way. Buoyed by a strong and growing coalition of  Non Toxic advocates fighting for a healthier environment for their children, pets, and wildlife, Carlsbad is the newest in a string of southern California communities that are implementing safer pest control practices. In recognition of the significant progress and activity in southern California communities, Beyond Pesticides’ 36^th National Pesticide Forum, Organic Neighborhoods: For healthy children, families, and ecology, will take place in Irvine, CA from April 13-14, 2018 (stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides’ website for additional updates!).

Carlsbad’s new policy is, in fact, an update of an Integrated Pest Management plan the City last reviewed in 2003. While its previous policy only addressed City parks, the new plan will include all City maintained or operated land and facilities. The policy also takes a much tougher approach against toxic pesticides, prioritizing the use of organic products first and foremost when pest problems arise. Importantly, the policy also places pesticides last on the list of pest management tactics, indicating that even least-toxic and organic pesticides should be used only as a last resort after cultural, mechanical, environmental/physical, and biological controls have been attempted and failed. While the policy is broad and outlines a decision making process with priorities, it distinguishes itself from a Portland, Maine-style ordinance (adopted previously by Montgomery County, MD and South Portland, ME) that clearly prohibits the allowance of any toxic pesticides used in managing landscapes that are not compatible with organic methods, except in cases of public health protection and management of invasives. Under these ordinances, materials are clearly defined as compliant with organic by USDA or exempt by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Carlsbad City Council voted to take a phased in approach to the implementation of the ordinance, aiming to educate city staff and contractors about the ordinance and update contracts and approvals the City currently has with land and building maintenance companies. That process is expected to be complete by mid-2018. “Asked to choose between aesthetics and public health … I’m going to choose public health every time,” said Councilwoman Cori Shumacher to the San Diego Union Tribune. “There’s a request for us to take the lead here.”

Concerns in local newspapers noted the potential for increases in cost as a result of the new policy. However, as experiences in other communities across the country show, while there may be a short transition time when costs increase as new practices are learned, the organic approach takes hold, and soil life begins to rebound after years of chemical use, in the long run organic land care costs less. A 2010 report produced by turfgrass expert Chip Osborne and the group Grassroots Environmental Education provides a detailed account of cost, finding that a natural turf management program can result in savings of greater than 25% after 5 years. That report is now nearly a decade old, and many organic land managers indicate that the new products and practices available today could allow many communities to transition with little to no initial cost increase.

Irvine Unified School District, which, along with the City of Irvine, California, was first in the region to implement an organic policy, and has seen only minor cost increases during the first year and a half, at 5.6% of its landscape budget.  Bob Johnson, a member of Non Toxic Carlsbad and former employee at the City of Irvine has high hopes for the future of organic land care. “It’s a total transformation,” he told The Coast News. “It’s been in place for 18 months, and the IUSD budget went up 5.6 percent because of testing different products. I think the price will go down, especially with less watering.”

Unlike the historic policy passed earlier this month banning pesticide on public and private property in Portland, ME, California communities are limited to addressing pesticide use that occurs on public, City-owned property, and cannot restrict pesticide use on private property. California’s state preemption law, which disallows local communities from crafting a policy that is stricter than state law, prevents these communities from doing so. However, as more and more communities like Carlsbad, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano pass organic policies and show the desire for local communities to go farther than EPA and the state in protecting their residents, pressure will build on California state lawmakers to reverse regressive preemption statues.

The best way to fight back against inaction and industry influence within EPA and our state and federal governments is to become active at the local level. Reach out to Beyond Pesticides for tools, strategies, and information you can use to enact change in your community. And stay tuned for more information to come on Beyond Pesticides 36^th National Pesticide Forum, Organic Neighborhoods: For healthy children, families, and ecology, in Irvine, CA, April 13-14.

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

Source: San Diego Union Tribune, The Coast News

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2018) Comments are needed by January 17 on plans announced by the Trump Administration to scuttle the final rule on organic animal welfare (the Organic Livestock Poultry Practices rule, or OLPP) that was adopted as a final rule a year ago.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Sonny Perdue has repeatedly delayed implementation of the final rule on animal welfare in organic production. The effective date of the final rule published on January 19, 2017, delayed on February 9, 2017, and again on May 10, 2017, is now delayed until May 14, 2018. By setting minimum indoor and outdoor space requirements and defining “outdoors,” the rule would make it more difficult for factory egg and poultry farms to be certified organic. Although many wished it to be stronger, the rule received widespread support. More than 40,000 agriculture groups, farmers, and others urged USDA to finalize the standard; only 28 commenters opposed it. The Organic Trade Association sued USDA in September for failing to finalize the standard. Now, USDA proposes to withdraw the rule altogether.

Tell USDA to implement the Organic Livestock Poultry Practices rule now!  Then give your message to your U.S. Senators and Representative.

The OLPP requires that organic chickens have access to the outdoors, space to move around, sunlight and fresh air, and that animals on farms be protected from unnecessary and potentially harmful procedures, such as tail docking of cows and unrestricted beak trimming on birds. The majority of organic livestock farmers already comply with these rules. USDA’s inexcusable rollback of organic standards is the biggest attack on organic since it tried to allow GMOs in the original standard nearly 20 years ago.

Tell USDA to implement the Organic Livestock Poultry Practices rule now!

(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2018)  With a long-documented history of children’s exposure to pesticides that drift from agricultural fields to school yards, California’s new regulations establishing no-spray buffers took effort January 1, as labor and public health groups acknowledged the progress and inadequacy of the measure. The new rule, DPR 16-004 Pesticide Use Near Schoolsites, adopted by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), prohibits many pesticide applications within a quarter mile of public K-12 schools and licensed child day-care facilities during school hours, Monday through Friday between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. This includes all applications by aircraft, sprinklers, air-blast sprayers, and all fumigant applications. In addition, most dust and powder pesticide applications, such as sulfur, will also be prohibited during this time. The new rule was announced in November, 2017.

Advocates say the new rules fail to address persistent low-level exposures associated with the use of the pesticides near schools, which are in agricultural areas that are disproportionately Latino and from farmworker families. There is continuing concern about children’s exposure to hazardous pesticides because children use school grounds after school hours and on weekends and residues from drift may remain on school grounds. Many pesticides used are persistent and systemic, lingering in the air and on surfaces long after they are applied. In fact, 2016 air monitoring data found pesticide residues at levels more than 18 times federal standards on the campus of Shafter High School in Kern County. 

After two years of contentious debate, and more than 19,000 public comments, hearings and workshops, DPR, a division of the state’s Environmental Protection Agency, adopted the regulation. DPR invited public comment on the regulation in October, 2017. The regulations also provide annual notification to schools and day-care facilities of pesticides expected to be used within quarter mile of the schools by April 30. However, there are concerns that the notification provisions are not adequate to protect the vulnerable because of the inability to avoid exposure. The law will affect about 4,100 public schools and licensed child day-care facilities and approximately 2,500 growers.

DPR notes that the state has some of the most restrictive pesticide regulations in the country, but population growth has created a growing number of situations where schools and day-care facilities are located near or directly adjacent to working farms, increasing the potential for unintended exposures to pesticides. Many counties have adopted local rules related to pesticide applications near schools and day-care centers, but until now, there was no consistent, statewide standard. Now, DPR states the new regulations will allow schools, growers and county agricultural commissioners “to devise alternative application restrictions that provide an equal or greater level of protection to those provided by the regulation.”

Intense pressure from the industry, resulted in a weakening of the draft proposed regulation. For example, the original proposal required growers give schools 48-hour notice of any pesticide use planned within a quarter mile was removed from the final regulation, leaving only the requirement to provide general notice to schools of possible pesticide use over the year. At that time, concerned parents and advocates said it was unacceptable for DPR to water down already insufficient protections.

While the quarter mile buffer zone creates a standard across the entire state, scientific evidence and recent incidents in the state point to a need for a much larger buffer zone. In spring 2017, dozens of farmworkers were harmed when pesticides, including the controversial chlorpyrifos, drifted more than half a mile from the application site.

A 2014 California Department of Public Health (CDPH) report on pesticide use near schools revealed that there are 140 highly hazardous pesticides associated with cancer, reproductive and developmental harm and damage to the nervous system used in close proximity to schools; over 118,000 students attend school in close proximity to the heaviest use of pesticides; and Latino schoolchildren are 91% more likely than white students to be exposed to the highest levels of hazardous pesticides.

Children exposed to high levels of pesticides like the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos have developmental delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders. Most recently, researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara, analyzing 500,000 birth observations, report that exposure to pesticides as a result of living in the agriculturally dominated San Joaquin Valley increases the risk of giving birth to a baby with abnormalities. A 2014 study conducted by the UC Davis Mind Institute also found that pregnant women who lived within a mile of fields where chlorpyrifos was sprayed more than tripled their chances of giving birth to a child with autism. Additionally, the UC Berkeley CHAMACOS team, studying organophosphate impacts on women and children in the Salinas Valley, found that every 522 pounds of combined organophosphate pesticide applications within one kilometer of a pregnant woman’s home correlates with a two point IQ loss in her children at seven years old. A 2016 study published in The Lancet estimated that organophosphate pesticide exposure, insecticides often used for agricultural purposes, resulted in 1.8 million lost IQ points, and 7.5 thousand intellectual disability cases annually at an estimated cost of $44.7 billion each year. Of that $44.7 billion, roughly $350 million in costs can be attributed to California, proportionately.

Although California’s statewide regulation is a start, its numerous shortcomings demonstrate the clear and present need to transition to least-toxic alternatives, and to eventually phase-out chemical-intensive agriculture. It is not enough to simply prohibit spraying toxic chemicals near schools “at certain times.” Dosing fields with hazardous agricultural pesticides must become a thing of the past. A wide variety of alternative practices and products are available to assist growers in preventing pest problems before they start. Organic agriculture, which requires farmers to improve soil health and craft an organic system plan to guide pest control decisions, represents a viable path forward for agriculture in California and beyond.

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

Source:  California Department of Pesticide Regulation; Pesticide Action Network North America; KEYT News

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2018) After 11:00 pm on January 3, the City Council of Portland, ME voted unanimously (9-0) to restrict the use of toxic pesticides on all lawns and landscapes within the City, both public and private. Passage of the new pesticide ordinance, one of the strongest in the country, represents the culmination of nearly two and a half years of intense debate and discussion between residents, advocates, opponents, and City of Portland officials. Local and national health and environmental groups are praising the City for its diligence in addressing the issue, and its ultimate decision to restrict hazardous pesticide use in the face of insufficient protections from federal and state regulators. Read Beyond Pesticides’ and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association’s (MOFGA) op-ed in the Portland Press Herald.

Outside of Maine, the City of Portland now joins neighboring South Portland and other jurisdictions in the state of Maryland (the City of Takoma Park and Montgomery County ), which have taken similar action. Twenty-eight jurisdictions throughout Maine have restricted pesticides in various ways, including on public property, but the comprehensive Portland-style ordinance stops virtually all hazardous pesticide use in the community, on private and public property. In support of the legislation, the Council received a letter from 31 medical and science professionals, who said, “As health professionals, it is our contention based on the molecular and microbiologic actions of these synthetic land care pesticides that the continued use of them must be challenged, banned, and replaced by practices and products that are not harmful to people and the environment.”

The ability to apply pesticide restrictions to private property is permitted within only a handful of states due to preemption laws which prevent localities from enacting pesticide policies stricter than the state’s. While Maine localities are not preempted, during the course of deliberations in Portland, Governor Paul LePage and other state lawmakers friendly to the pesticide industry launched a failed attempt to pass preemption legislation. The bill was rejected unanimously by a state legislature committee.

Avery Kamila, a leading advocate for pesticide reform in the City and co-founder of the local group Portland Protectors, is proud of the Portland City Council. “The council listened to the residents, organic experts and the independent science and decided to prioritize public health and environmental stewardship,” she said in an emailed statement.  “I expect our new status as a leading organic city will make Portland even more attractive to young people and visitors.”

In August of 2015, Portland Protectors presented the City Council with a draft pesticide ordinance, and launched a petition which eventually received over 1,300 signatures. A subcommittee hearing scheduled in October of that year saw strong turnout, though city staff also presented their own version of an ordinance which was limited to public property, and included a number of exemptions. After several subsequent hearings, the Council decided to form a Task Force to further study the issue. Advocates viewed the Task Force as tilted toward industry interests, and its final recommendation reflected that notion, with language encouraging an outdated Integrated Pest Management approach that allowed the use of undefined “least-toxic” pesticides.

As Portland continued its debate, neighboring South Portland passed a model, comprehensive pesticide reform policy that specifically defined allowed pesticides as those permitted under organic production or considered minimum risk by the Environmental Protection Agency. Advocates in Portland seized on the passage of South Portland’s policy, and urged the City Council take up an ordinance modeled after their neighbor’s, rather than the recommendation of the Task Force.

Portland’s elected leaders listened to the concerns of their residents, and final debate over pesticide reform considered a South Portland-style ordinance. City staff recommended a range of changes to weaken the policy, however only two minor amendments were included within the final bill passed this week. These amendments delay the start date of the ordinance on public property from March 1, 2018 to July 1, 2018, and include an exemption for the use of toxic pesticides to control invasive plants on public property.

In addition to creating specific criteria for what pesticides are allowed for use in the City, the ordinance establishes a Pest Management Advisory Committee (PMAC) comprised of City staff, land care and pest control experts, and Portland residents. Within PMAC, a waiver committee will review requests to use more toxic pesticides, determining whether their use is necessary or would further endanger public health. The ordinance also includes a strong outreach and education campaign to ensure the community is aware of the changes, and of best practices for their lawns and landscapes. Violations of the ordinance will be subject to civil penalties as enforced by the City Manager. After the new July 1 start date for restrictions on public property, all private property will be subject to the ordinance beginning on January 1, 2019.

“Portland Protectors will closely monitor the implementation of this ordinance,” said Avery Kamila. Advocates are concerned about a clause they had hoped to remove from the final version of the ordinance exempting high use athletic fields for a period of time. As Ms. Kamila indicates, “the city used 2,200 pounds of high risk weed-and-feed on five student athletic fields last year. This use will be allowed until 2021, and we want to see it stop much sooner.”

“We also hope the council will come back later and restrict synthetic fertilizer use and restrict the sale of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers,” she said. There is growing recognition that the success of policies that restrict pesticides entail a change in management practices away from fertilizers which damage soil and undermine healthy turf. Beyond Pesticides’ list of fertilizers compatible with organic landscape management intends to help localities establish a foundation for healthy turf management.

After the passage of Portland’s ordinance, advocates are focusing on creating a strong PMAC committee, implementing the outreach and education program, and hoping that additional communities in the state will follow the City’s lead. As communities and states continue to rely on an increasingly lax and industry-friendly EPA for determinations about the safety of pesticides, more and more concerned residents are contacting their local elected leaders, and more and more leaders are listening, and acting on their constituent’s concerns. The passage of Portland’s ordinance is yet another example of the power of grassroots change to protect not only our own health, and particularly the health of children, but the also the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil we use to grow our food, and wildlife and complex ecology upon which we all rely.

If you’re interested in getting active in your community and passing a policy like Portland’s, reach out to Beyond Pesticides for the tools and the strategy you need to succeed. Contact us at 202-543-5450 or email [email protected].

Read Portland’s ordinance here (an updated document including the two additional amendments voted on before final passage will be added when it becomes available).

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

Source: Portland Press Herald; Beyond Pesticides Press Release