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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the report’s key recommendations are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: South Miami City Commission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Daily Hampshire Gazette, Concord Monitor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2019) The Endangered Species Coalition has released its newest annual report on the 10 U.S. species most threatened by pesticide use, Poisoned: 10 American species imperiled by pesticides. Produced with seven of its member groups, the coalition introduces the report by noting, “Our world is awash in chemicals. We’re particularly addicted to pesticides.” It points to well-known harms, and identifies the exacerbating factors of both climate change and the Trump administration, the latter of which “denies the reality of climate change and has dramatically changed how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is implemented, leaving vulnerable species at far greater risk.” The introduction ends on a somewhat encouraging tone, saying that previous administrations have supported record growth in organic farming — the solution to pesticides harms that Beyond Pesticides has long endorsed — and that “any administration has the power to get us back on track and away from pesticides.”

Impacts on wildlife linked to pesticide exposures — including mammals, bees and other pollinators, fish and other aquatic organisms, birds, and the biota within soil — have been well documented by Beyond Pesticides, and include reproductive, neurological, renal, hepatic, endocrine disruptive, and developmental anomalies, as well as cancers, in a wide range of species.

The 10 species — plus an additional “staff choice” — identified in the report live, variously, in virtually every region of the continental U.S. Many of these species live in the Pacific Northwest and/or in California, but Southern, Midwestern, and mid-Atlantic states are host to some, as well. Brief descriptions of the status of each of these creatures follow.

Although exceedingly little is known about the Salado salamander (U.S. population = unknown), which was recognized as a new species only in 2000, what is known is that it is very rare (with barely more than 100 of them found during the past 30 years), and it requires clean, high-quality water for survival. It is vulnerable to impacts from glyphosate in water sources, and potentially to atrazine, as are some other amphibians, which can stunt growth, cause deformities, and impair reproductive development. The tiny known populations currently live in only a few springs in one county in Texas.

The ground-nesting streaked horned lark (population = < 2,000), whose territory used to range from southwest British Colombia to southern Oregon, is now found only along the southern Washington coast, the lower Columbia River, the southern Puget Sound lowlands, and Oregon’s Willamette Valley. It has been designated as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. These birds are greatly affected by habitat destruction, and can be lethally affected by neonicotinoid pesticides to which they are exposed through consumption of neonicotinoid-treated seeds. Bird populations are significantly harmed by these pesticides.

Chinook salmon (population = a fraction of historic numbers) are likely a better-known species than some on this list, both for their food and commercial value, and for their traditional role in Pacific Northwest Native subsistence and cultures. These salmon start life in cold freshwater streams, then migrate to the ocean, and ultimately swim many miles (in some cases, hundreds) upstream to their natal waterways to breed and then die. This largest of the salmon has been brutally affected by development, overfishing, damming of rivers, and agricultural effluent, including pesticides. Chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon are especially dangerous for the salmon; they accumulate in the fatty tissues of the fish, and can cause abnormal sexual development, and impair their swimming ability, growth, development, and reproduction. Organisms farther up the food chain — including humans — then consume these fish and whatever chemicals are stored in them. Too, chinook salmon are the major food source for orca whales; as salmon populations have plummeted, so many orcas are dying from starvation, reproductive failures, and calf mortalities, that fewer than 75 remain.

The Crotch’s bumble bee (population = unknown), like so many other pollinators, is adversely affected by pesticides and by neonicotinoids, in particular. Not only are the bees exposed to these compounds as they forage among flowers for nectar and pollen; they are also, it turns out, exposed as they overwinter in undergrounds nests. Studies have demonstrated that such exposures impair the bees’ foraging, navigational, and learning behaviors, as well as suppress immune response. Populations of the bumble bees have dropped by 76% as they have disappeared from much of their historic range in California and Mexico’s Baja peninsula.

Another denizen of California and the Baja is the California red-legged frog (population = unknown), the largest of the western U.S. frogs, although its numbers are also reduced across much of their former range; habitat loss and pesticide pollution are among the factors threatening their welfare. Atrazine is one of the pesticides that threatens these frogs, who are especially vulnerable because their skins are permeable, so ingestion happens all over their bodies. The compound — which is also an endocrine disruptor — can alter neurotransmitters and stunt growth, cause deformities, and lead to abnormal sexual development, including hermaphroditism. The red-legged frog is considered an indicator species, meaning that its well-being is a “canary in a coal mine” barometer for the health of their ecosystem. As the report says, “When their home becomes unhealthy, so do they.”

The smallest North American fox, the San Joaquin kit fox (population = unknown), is considered an “umbrella species,” meaning that when it is protected, that protection extends to other creatures within its ecosystem. When populations declined 50 years ago because of residential and agricultural development, the fox was protected both by federal and California regulations. Since then, it has come under threat of dietary exposure to pesticides, especially those used for mosquito control and rodenticides. Roughly 10% of kit fox deaths are from pesticide exposure. When the foxes consume rodents, rabbits, voles, snakes, birds, lizards, fish, insects, or carrion, they often ingest pesticides, as well. In California, for example, 70% of mammals and 68% of birds have been exposed to rodenticides. The report warns, “Too many bites of tainted insects, birds, and mammals, and the San Joaquin kit fox could be gone forever.”

The northern spotted owl (population = 4,400) is at similar dietary risk. The owl was frequently in the news over the past few decades because of both the devastating impacts on it from logging and its ultimate 1990 protection under the ESA. But the rise in use of rodenticides has become a significant threat; the report notes that more than 70% of owls tested positive for rodenticides, to which they are exposed through poisoned prey. Rodenticide use has risen in recent years in part because of illegal marijuana cultivation in the owl’s old-growth forest habitat. Once an owl is exposed, death may come quickly, or after weeks or months of internal bleeding caused by the anti-coagulant action of most rodenticides. When contaminated owls are predated on, the toxin moves into other nontarget animals, such as bobcats, mountain lions, and those San Joaquin kit foxes.

For all the “pest control” activity in which bats indulge (consuming mosquitoes, crop pests, and insects that may carry diseases), as well as fertilization and seed broadcasting — humans are not doing right by these curious, nocturnal friends. The imperiled Indiana bat (population in 2017 = 560,000), along with another 14 or so bat species, is affected by white nose syndrome, a fungal infection that spreads aggressively in bat colonies during their hibernation. (The disease has killed more than 6 million bats during the last 12 years.) On top of that, when an Indiana bat consumes thousands of insects in a given night, many of those will be harboring pesticide residues, which can accumulate in its tiny body and negatively impact neurological function and immunity — making the animal more susceptible to the “white nose” fungus.

The pink mucket pearly mussel (population = 2,500–100,000) is a riverine mussel that historically lived in at least two dozen rivers in the eastern U.S. Yet again, human activities in the forms of logging, mining, damming, and overharvesting (including for buttons!) noticeably diminished populations of these bivalves; they were protected, starting in 1976, under the ESA. Mussels are both an indicator species that can warn of changes in water quality, and siphon feeders that keep waters healthful by filtering out pollutants. Mussels need clean water in order for their complex reproductive cycle to produce viable offspring. Babies are extremely fragile, and vulnerable to pollution and pesticides, including atrazine, carbaryl, and diazinon. Industrial, residential, and agricultural runoff are huge threats, in part because of the omnipresent glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup, the most widely used pesticide, and 750 other common herbicides). Glyphosate kills baby mussels outright.

The monarch butterfly (population = 80% reduced from 20 years ago) is among the most “famous” of the harmed species, due to nonprofit and media coverage of its declining status; the monarch is currently being reviewed for listing under the ESA. These Olympian migrators travel hundreds or thousands of miles on their annual migrations to central Mexico and back; amazingly, it can take several generations to complete one migration. As the report notes, “The fact that a monarch can find its way to the very home that sheltered its great-great-grandparent the winter before is one of the most astonishing feats of nature.” These ephemeral creatures are by nature fragile; their vulnerability is exacerbated by the fact that they are utterly dependent on milkweed plants. It is their only food, and it is where they lay their eggs. Milkweed has been subject to the lethal impact of, again, Roundup. The hegemony of genetically engineered seeds and their paired glyphosate herbicides across the continent’s farmlands has laid waste to milkweed. In response, monarch populations have plummeted.

The “staff pick,” the Hine’s emerald dragonfly (population = unknown), is a green-gossamer-winged denizen of marshes and wetlands. Such habitat is particularly fragile because of its very nature as a natural filtering and recharge area. When pesticides and other pollution arrive via rainwater and runoff, they may end up being concentrated in the habitat — home to many insects and small aquatic organisms, including dragonflies. The odd lifecycle of this dragonfly — as long as four years as a nymph and a mere month or so as a flying adult — means it can be living in a fairly toxic environment for most of its life, should it survive its nymph phase.

Those looking to help wildlife affected by the pesticide chemicals in our environment and materials stream can take several kinds of action. Certainly, they should not use pesticides in homes, yard, and gardens; there are less-toxic alternatives available. Folks with green thumbs can add to biodiversity, and food and nesting resources, by planting native, pollinator- and bird-friendly plants (e.g., milkweed, lupine, echinacea, lavender, asters, and others). The public can advocate at local, state, and federal levels for stricter controls of pesticides, as well as a transition to organic agriculture and land management. More information and resources to support a nontoxic world for wildlife (and humans) can be found on the Beyond Pesticides website.    

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

Sources: https://www.endangered.org/cms/assets/uploads/2019/11/ESC2019.pdf and https://www.endangered.org/campaigns/annual-top-ten-report/poisoned/

(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2019) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under pressure from chemical companies, released a proposal on Tuesday to further weaken protections regarding 23 pyrethroids. Pyrethroids are a common class of neurotoxic insecticides that have been repeatedly linked by peer-reviewed studies to neurological issues such as learning disabilities in children. They are also extremely damaging to non-target invertebrates, according to EPA’s own analysis. Despite this, EPA had already recently undermined protections for children from these chemicals, and the Trump Administration is now embracing industry proposals to further remove other safety barriers to human health and the environment.

The Pyrethroid Working Group, a weighty working group of pesticide companies, requested EPA reduce safeguards such as a permanent 66-foot vegetation buffer between fields and water bodies to a 10 – 25-foot buffer. Also, the working group (and now EPA) suggests that the wind-speed cutoff for spraying should be increased from 10 mph to 15 mph. EPA’s announcement proposes the reapproval of five out the 23 pyrethroids; proposals regarding the rest are already pending approval. EPA is accepting public comments on the proposal until January 13, 2020.

As mentioned, this is only the latest detrimental decision EPA has put forth regarding synthetic pyrethroids. This August EPA stripped away protections that limit children’s exposure to pyrethroids, lowering the safety factor (accepted exposure rates) from 3x to 1x that of adults – ignoring the fact that children are more susceptible to the impacts of toxic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides’ coverage of the decision noted, “In reviewing the epidemiological literature on the health impact of this chemical class, EPA looked at hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, but only incorporated two into its determination. The vast majority of studies reviewed by EPA were considered low quality by the agency’s subjective criteria, and effectively ignored.

“Instead, the agency prioritized methodology put forth by [industry group known as the Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment] CAPHRA and encouraged by Croplife [an agrichemical industry trade group]. Under the CAPHRA model, pyrethroids were estimated to be metabolized by children at the same rate as adults. Children are more vulnerable to toxic chemical exposure than adults, given that they take in more chemical relative to body weight, and have organs systems whose development is disrupted.”

While environmental and health organizations such as Beyond Pesticides rallied against the changes through the public comment process, the public voice was – like the independent science – ignored.

Nathan Donley, PhD, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release, “There’s no floor on how low this administration will stoop to appease the pesticide industry,” he continued, “Ignoring independent science in favor of whatever pesticide companies want is par for the Trump course. In their relentless push to cripple pesticide protections, EPA officials are shrugging off huge threats to children’s health and the survival of bees and other environmentally crucial creatures.”

This news is the latest in a barrage of federal deregulation at the behest of industry. At the same time, various communities show that it is possible to take action at the local level to limit pesticide usage. Moms battling agrichemical giants for local control of their right to clean air and water won in the Maryland courts this summer. The success of organic agriculture and land management prove that toxic pesticides are not necessary. Let us know if you, too, are ready to make change in your local community by emailing [email protected] or giving us a call at 202-543-5450.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2019) Research from Germany shows a steep decline of arthropod (insect and spider) populations in grasslands and forests. These data add to the growing body of evidence documenting an ongoing insect apocalypse. “Our study confirms that insect decline is real,” Author Sebastian Seibold, PhD, told BBC, “It might be even more widespread than previously thought considering, for example, that also forests are experiencing declines in insect populations.”

Researchers analyze data from standardized inventories of arthropod populations taken from 150 grassland sites and 140 forest sites across three regions of Germany sampled between 2008-2017. They found that, in grasslands, arthropod:

• Biomass declined by 67%
• Abundance declined by 78%
• Number of species declined by 34%

In forest sites, arthropod:

• Biomass declined by 41%
• Number of species declined by 36%
• Abundance had more complicated results

The paper’s abstract sums up, “Our results suggest that major drivers of arthropod decline act at larger spatial scales, and are (at least for grasslands) associated with agriculture at the landscape level. This implies that policies need to address the landscape scale to mitigate the negative effects of land-use practices.”

The scale of the insect crisis became clear after German researchers published a study in PLOS One that found, using 27 years of data largely collected by citizen scientists, overall insect biomass had declined by 75% over that timeframe. Other alarming studies followed, including a systematic review which warns that about half of insect populations worldwide are rapidly declining, and a third are headed toward extinction. Authors Drs. Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys put forth an ominous prediction that all insects will be killed off if current detrimental practices – especially chemical-intensive agriculture – continue.

Dr. Seibold notes, “I think it’s alarming to see that such a decline happens not only in intensively-managed areas but also in protected areas — so the sites that we think are safeguarding our biodiversity are not really working anymore.”

The loss of insects not only deprives the world of critical ecosystem services such as pollination, it also plays into the decimation of bird populations – declines of roughly 1/3 since 1970 – that have been recently been documented.

It’s clear that industrial agriculture is contributing to the insect apocalypse, as well as declines in birds and other yet unknown species. Yet we also know that, by eschewing pesticide use, focusing on soil health, diversification, and sustainable practices, organic and regenerative farming and land management can help reverse this decline. Join this effort by purchasing organic whenever possible, planting diverse pesticide-free habitat on your property, and encouraging your local community to follow suit. Initiatives in cities like Amsterdam, Netherlands show that this is an issue we can still address.

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

Source: Nature, BBC

(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2019) Current USDA regulations clearly state that after a dairy farmer takes advantage of a one-time exemption to convert an existing “distinct” herd to organic production—all animals brought onto the farm must have been managed organically from the last third of gestation—in the case of cows, from three months prior to birth.

However, USDA has interpreted the prohibition to mean that dairies could purchase animals, on an ongoing basis, who were born and raised on conventional dairies. These calves receive medicated milk replacer (formula laced with antibiotics) and, after weaning, are fed conventional GMO crops generally sprayed with Bayer/Monsanto’s Roundup.®

Now, as livestock factories are taking over a good share of the organic market and pushing family-scale farmers off the land, USDA has finally, only after being forced by Congress, written additional regulatory language intending to close a loophole created by USDA’s negligence.

Tell the USDA to follow the will of Congress and close its own loophole. The National Organic Program should enforce both the spirit and letter of the law.

Organic farmers are mandated to provide healthy living conditions where livestock can exhibit their natural instinctive behaviors. When they do that—and for dairy cattle, that means grazing on fresh grass—the cows are not pushed for damaging high milk production and live long healthy lives.

With the USDA permitting converted conventional cattle, it became quicker and cheaper to start giant industrial-scale dairies, some managing 20,000-head each, competitively damaging ethical organic family farmers.

Even worse, these livestock factories are primarily confining cattle in giant buildings or feedlots, pushing them for unhealthy high production with “hot rations.” This results in demonstrably more milk produced per cow, but comes at a grave cost to the animals, who end up living short, stressful, and unhealthy lives. Since organic standards prohibit the use of antibiotics to treat related illnesses, many of these animals are sent to an early slaughter.

Sign the petition and tell the USDA to follow the will of Congress and close its own loophole. The National Organic Program should enforce both the spirit and letter of the law.

We will be formally sending your petition, along with those of others, before the December 2 deadline.

Petition Letter
Sign the Petition: Comments Due to the USDA December 2

Thank you for the opportunity to provide public input on the Proposed Rule on the Origin of Livestock. I fully support the effort to close the “loopholes” that have allowed the continued practice of bringing conventional livestock on to organic farms. USDA’s actions have violated the spirit and letter of the organic law, allowing factory farm livestock operations to manage their herds using practices that are not sustainable and do not promote the health of their livestock.

However, the proposed new rule appears to create a new loophole that must be closed to prevent the ongoing abuse of the intent and spirit of organic law.

Specifically, please adopt the following changes:

The rule must require that any organic dairy farm selling organic animals be a functioning “commercial dairy” that is inspected and permitted by the state in which it operates. Furthermore, this dairy farm must have a relationship with a licensed milk handler shipping to a licensed dairy plant. In addition, this operation should be fully established, shipping milk for no less than 180 days, and any animal sold should be producing milk herself. This means that no young transitioned heifers, who have never been milked, could qualify for sale as “organic.”

As an alternative, as proposed by the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, should the National Organic Program seek a definitive solution to the potential loophole noted above, it could simply choose to ban, outright, the sale to an organic operation of any cattle that had been transitioned from conventional production to organic production.

The final rule should close the loophole for breeding stock by creating additional safeguards that would prevent rotating animals in and out of organic production and only allow periodic and limited editions for genetic diversity (prohibiting the practice of converting first litter sows to organic production on a continual basis).

Thank you for considering my comments on this important matter.

And finally, because of the long-term nature of this controversy there should be no phase-in to the new rule restrictions. Any conventional cattle that are in the process of being transitioned to organic should be allowed, regardless of the fact that it is considered by many to be illegitimate under the current regulations, to complete the process.

Allowing for a phase-in will cause a rush of conventional cattle to start the transition process to organic. This could cause a further exacerbation of the current glut of organic milk, crashing the price and shifting even more market share to the giant, industrial scale producers — driving additional farmers out of business.

Sincerely,

The undersigned

(Beyond Pesticides, November 8, 2019) A new report out from As You Sow — 2019 Pesticides in the Pantry: Transparency and Risk in Food Supply Chains — focuses on the risks that agricultural pesticide use represents for food manufacturers, and offers recommendations and benchmarks for improvement in the areas of management and transparency. The report concludes that companies typically have some sort of sustainable sourcing program within their supply chains, but that most of those “lack clear criteria,” and virtually none of them includes pesticide use as an indicator.

As an organization that works on shareholder advocacy to “harness shareholder power to create lasting change that benefits people, planet, and profit,” As You Sow is responding to investor and shareholder demand that companies reduce the presence of synthetic pesticide chemicals in their supply chains. No doubt this report has arisen indirectly from increased public, judicial, and media attention to the harms — to human and environmental health — of intensive pesticide use in conventional agriculture. Beyond Pesticides maintains that the real fix for the problem is a transition to organic and regenerative agriculture.

Highlights of the problem in the U.S. identified in the report include:

• more than 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually
• during the period of 2008–2012, $9 million was spent on agricultural pesticides
• according to the 2009 CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, the agency’s biomonitoring program found pesticide residues in 90% of U.S. subjects studied; that level persisted at least through 2015, according to updated tables for the CDC report
• these facts, combined with the harms pesticides cause, put food corporations at legal and reputational risk

Additionally, the report points to the human health and environmental harms, and economic costs, related to agricultural pesticide use. It identifies connections between pesticide exposures and neurodevelopmental, endocrine, reproductive, renal, hepatic, and cardiovascular disorders, as well as links with obesity, diabetes, and cancer. It notes the increased risks of exposure for people who live, work, attend school, and/or play near areas of heavy pesticide use. The report identifies impacts on biodiversity, endangered species, and soil’s climate resiliency services (its carbon-capturing-and-holding abilities, in particular).

To its credit, Pesticides in the Pantry, which is unusually reader-friendly, also acknowledges that the environmental costs of pesticides impact agroeconomics. It offers economic metrics related to biodiversity, and especially pollinator, loss, for example: “Healthy pollinator species are necessary for the production of 87 of the top 115 global food crops, an estimated 35% of all global food production. Losing pollinators could mean losing their contribution of more than $24 billion to the U.S. economy.”

The report addresses points that Beyond Pesticides has made over the years: that pesticides’ actual utility is both inflated and severely limited, given the issue of resistance. Pesticides in the Pantry notes that chemically intensive agriculture is, fundamentally, an exercise in entropy: “Over time, as resistance develops, more intense and more frequent applications of the pesticide are required to eliminate the pest, until eventually the pesticide provides little or no effective pest control, and a new, potentially more potent chemical must take its place.” Crop losses due to pesticide resistance cost $1.4 billion each year in the U.S. Increased costs of pesticides (and the genetically engineered seeds with which some of them are paired), caused in part by consolidation in the agrochemical industry, further challenge profit margins for farms — especially small- and mid-sized operations.

The report goes on to say that increasing rates of farm delinquency and bankruptcy are contributing to the financial instability of the sector, and that reduced pesticide use offers one bulwark against such instability. It notes, “Researchers have found farmers are able to reduce pesticide use significantly, without sacrificing productivity. One study found that farmers of pesticide-free, regenerative operations had 78% higher profits than their conventional counterparts, and reduced insect pest populations tenfold. The ability to raise food profitably, without massive pesticide dependence, is underscored by a United Nations’ human rights report that outwardly denounces the ‘myth’ that pesticides are necessary to feed the world’s growing population.”

The authors of Pesticides in the Pantry, Christy Spees and Danielle Fugere, identify 30 “performance indicators” that aimed to measure company efficacy at managing risk and acting on stakeholder interests. The risk management arena included, e.g., “robust strategies for the reduction of toxic pesticides and meaningful metrics for tracking performance and progress.” They then administered a questionnaire (see Results section) to 14 large food corporations,* which asked about policies, goals, targets, tracking, and outcome metrics, as well as about sustainable sourcing, and the presence, nature, and metrics of any regenerative agriculture programs they might maintain.

On the basis of responses to the survey, the researchers developed a first-ever (2019) scorecard for each corporation. As they note, “In this inaugural year of benchmarking and reporting, companies’ average scores were relatively low.” On a scale of 0–30 (with 30 representing the best possible outcome) only General Mills and PepsiCo scored above single digits, with 18 and 14, respectively.

Although three of the companies do explicitly address the issue of reducing the use of pesticides in their supply chains, most “do not currently provide goals, strategies, or targets for the reduction of pesticide use.” Roughly half of the companies have an IPM (Integrated Pest Management) program, but only one (Del Monte) sets out the reduction of synthetic pesticide use a goal.

Other dismal results from the survey were: not one of the companies has a supplier standard for glyphosate-based herbicides, and only Kellogg’s does any tracking of suppliers’ use of glyphosate; General Mills alone has a regenerative agriculture program of any kind; none of the companies has a crop-specific, sustainable sourcing program (e.g., for palm oil, a ubiquitous ingredient in processed foods); only General Mills and Mondelez require suppliers to provide quantitative data about their pesticide use; and only Lamb Weston has a specific, time-bound goal or target of reducing pesticide use in its supply chain.

The report connects the dots for food corporations: “The environmental damage caused by pesticides creates significant operational risk to food companies. Crop supply chains reliant on heavy use of pesticides may be damaged by loss of pollinator species, degraded soil, and pesticide resistance. To ensure long-term supply reliability, especially in the face of climate-change related impacts that make growing food more difficult, it is imperative that food companies mitigate these risks now by moving supplier farms toward sustainable pest management practices which reduce chemical inputs.”

The report does point to some “notable practices” by some companies, citing:

• Unilever’s Global Guidelines on Use of Pesticides in Sustainable Tea Sourcing, which identifies both reduction targets and time frames
• General Mills’ compilation of the most comprehensive set of metrics on pesticide use among the companies reviewed — identifying specific measurements to be taken and when, committing to annual reporting, and providing technical support to farmers for data collection
• Nestlé’s Responsible Sourcing Standard, which the authors describe as “comprehensive,” and which requires full supplier compliance, no use of prophylactic use of pesticides, and no use of “chemicals of concern” (including those identified by the Stockholm Convention and the Rotterdam Convention, and Class 1a and 1b pesticides identified by the United Nations’ World Health Organization, i.e., those characterized by their known or presumed carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and/or reproductive toxicity)

Pesticides in the Pantry acknowledges strides that some corporate entities have made in the areas of reducing deforestation, water use, and energy use and sourcing (resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions). It aims right at its corporate “targets” when it declares, “The total costs to human health and the environment from pesticides, coupled with the financial costs to farmers of maintaining a system with high input needs, suggest that food companies can benefit from supporting farmers in shifting away from conventional methods of pesticide-dependent farming.”

The near-absence of initiatives addressing reductions of pesticide use puts companies at significant legal liability, regulatory, and reputational risk, the authors maintain. With huge swaths of the public concerned about “chemical invasion” of the environment, food, and human bodies, high-profile lawsuits against chemical companies for pesticide harms, and regular media attention to pesticide residues found in consumer food products, food companies would do well to look to their supply chains. The report concludes that companies should establish corporate sustainability commitments that address pesticides by identifying reduction targets, clearly defining expectations, and measuring and evaluating progress. A useful addition to that list might be actual consequences for failure to meet requirements, targets, and expectations.

Pesticides in the Pantry identifies organic agriculture, regenerative agriculture, and IPM (Integrated Pest Management) as specific solutions that companies should pursue in their supplier chains. On that last: the authors do acknowledge that there is no standardized definition of IPM, and that any references to it in corporate policies should be accompanied by very specific goals, requirements, and metrics. Food corporations would do well to reform their supply-chain practices by sourcing organic ingredients for their products, and to support farmer-suppliers in transitioning to organic production. They ought also to advance the growth of regenerative agriculture, which can vastly improve soil health, increase biodiversity, mitigate some impacts of the warming climate and its sequelae, and improve farmer profitability.

The report’s conclusion says, “The problems of pesticide use raise risks from litigation on health and environmental damages, to changing consumer demands for healthy foods and reputational loss, to increasingly less effective crop production, especially in the face of climate change. . . . Given the myriad risks the use of pesticides creates for the environment, public health, consumers, and corporations, it is time for investors to amplify solutions that promote long-term sustainability. Agricultural supply chains will face increasing challenges as the impacts of climate change continue to unfold; it is critical that companies that rely on these supply chains take action now to prepare for these challenges and mitigate risk. This scorecard provides suggestions for meaningful corporate action to reduce pesticide use in agricultural supply chains. By taking steps to shift the food system away from toxic chemicals and towards practices which promote healthy soil, biodiversity, and farmer resilience, corporations have an opportunity to live up to their responsibility to all stakeholders, protect themselves from litigation and regulatory risk, and gain the trust of consumers and the public.”

Pesticides in the Pantry recommends that:

• investors and shareholders push corporations toward robust pesticide-reduction strategies
• corporations commit to: reducing pesticide use in their supply chains, noting that prioritizing core ingredient corps is a smart first step; employ great specificity in goals, requirements, and outcomes; triage pesticide reduction focus, identifying the highest-risk compounds as the most urgent to reduce; and invest in agricultural practices that eliminate chemical pesticide use and improve the health of soil (such as regenerative, organic agriculture)

This peek into the supply chains of giant food companies provided by Pesticides in the Pantry offers some takeaways for the consumer. One might certainly be to avoid processed foods; but in addition, those who have investments in large food companies can exercise their shareholder influence on corporate practices related to pesticides in the food supply. Supporting organic production is another important way to voice both objection to chemically laden food and the desire for its opposite. Through its Daily News Blog, Beyond Pesticides covers not only the problems of pesticides, but also, the solutions on the path to a less-toxic world.

* Those companies include: B&G Foods, Campbell’s, ConAgra, Del Monte, General Mills, Hain Celestial, J.M. Smucker, Kellogg’s, Kraft Heinz, Lamb Weston, Mondelez International, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Post.

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

Sources: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59a706d4f5e2319b70240ef9/t/5dc0996c789a43074732bb2c/1572903283537/PesticideInThePantry2019_04_FIN.pdf and https://www.asyousow.org/report-page/2019-pesticides-pantry-transparency-risk-food-supply-chains

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2018) A former employee of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board claims that other staff members misused and disposed of pesticides in protected areas next to Lake Harriet. The controversy comes at a pivotal moment for Minneapolis, as Minneapolis Public School District and the Park and Recreation Board are beginning a demonstration organic land management project on a number of properties. Advocates are pushing for organic land management as an alternative to chemical-intensive practices.

Minneapolis gardener Angee Ohmah Siegal says she was at the Lyndale Park Peace Garden when she saw parks staff spraying herbicides on a windy day. According to Russ Henry, a local advocate who she told her story to, Siegal had to head to the hospital due to “uncontrollable vomiting.” What more, Siegal claims that the same employees would dump unused or leftover pesticides into a pond beside the Roberts Bird Sanctuary.

Mr. Henry and Ms. Siegal issued their complaint with Park Board commissioners on October 2, carrying a large poster of a mutated frog with six legs that Ms. Siegal says she had photographed near the area. Commissioners are investigating further into the allegations but say they need more specific evidence.

Volunteers from Roberts Bird Sanctuary, Stephen Greenfield and Constance Pepin, told the Minneapolis StarTribune that Ms. Seigel’s claims are “plausible.” They support a third-party investigation. Ms. Pepin said, “Even if this wasn’t done intentionally, accidents happen and they harm the wildlife in the sanctuary. We need to be building up the soil and having … healthy populations of insects and birds as part of a healthy ecosystem. Pesticides don’t have a place in that.”

Last year, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board ended the use of glyphosate (RoundUp) and created a pesticide advisory committee to inform reductions in the use of toxic pesticides. As the organic land management demonstrations begin, local groups are hosting an event next Wednesday to inform the public more on this issue. BeeSafe Minneapolis, Beyond Pesticides, Stonyfield Organic, and other groups are hosting a screening of the documentary Ground War.

Ground War is a filmmaker’s investigation into the death of his father that takes him deep into the world of golf, chemical lobbying, and citizen activism, where he learns that the rampant use of pesticides around the world may be far more damaging than he thought. The film is particularly timely with public controversy about the use of glyphosate and three lawsuits with multimillion-dollar jury verdicts since last year for compensation and punitive damages against its manufacturer, Monsanto (Bayer)—while thousands of lawsuits are pending. All of this widespread pesticide exposure is taking place in the face of inaction by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and headlines pointing to officials sidestepping the law.

The film screening and panel discussion provides an opportunity to educate the community on the critical importance of organic land management to public health and the reversal of dramatic environmental declines associated with climate change and rapid biodiversity decline. Since the film includes interviews with local people that have been successful and concludes on an organic golf course, it frames the opportunities for success.

Those in Minneapolis-Saint Paul and surrounding communities can join Beyond Pesticides, BeeSafe Minneapolis, Filmmaker Andrew Nisker, Organic Consumers Association, Minnehaha Falls Landscaping, Birchwood Café, and Humming for Bees on Monday, November 11 at 6:30pm at the Riverview Theater (3800 42^nd Ave S). See the flyer here and RSVP on Eventbrite.

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

Source: Minneapolis StarTribune

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2019) Between 1981 and 1992, Japanese fishers annually reaped an average of 240 tons of smelt from Lake Shinji. After 1993, their nets turned up about 22 tons – a 90% drop in their yield. Eel catches dropped by 74%. New research, published in the journal Science, implicates the introduction of neonicotinoids to the abutting watershed in the decimation of these aquatic populations, stating, “In Lake Shinji, neonicotinoids indirectly reduced fishery yields by decreasing the abundance of invertebrates that serve as food for smelt and eels.”

Researchers analyzed decades of data on zooplankton, midges, and water quality as well as annual fishery yields of eel and smelt spanning from 1981-2014. Zooplankton biomass, an important fodder for smelt, plummeted from 108 µg C L⁻¹ to 18.2 µg C L⁻¹ after imidacloprid was introduced for use on rice paddies in May of 1993. Midges (Cyathura muromiensis) that were found in abundance in 1982 totally disappeared from all sample sites by 2016. While the smelt and eel populations drastically declined, the authors note that icefish, which eat a more diversified diet, were not impacted. Though researchers considered the possibilities of other influencing factors such as invasive species, hypoxia, and changes in fish stocking, they did not relate to the observations.

“This study, although observational, presents compelling evidence,” Professor Olaf Jensen, PhD of Rutgers University, a scientist unaffiliated with the study, told The Guardian, “A fishery that was sustainable for decades collapsed within a year after farmers began using neonicotinoids. This is a large and astoundingly fast response.”

This research provides yet another illustration of how pesticides cause ripple effects through ecosystem structures; an ecological phenomenon known as a trophic cascade. Drew Toher of Beyond Pesticides notes in “Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem” that, “In both still and fast-moving aquatic environments, pesticides act powerfully on the foundational levels of the food web.”

Trophic cascades are not limited to aquatic environments, of course. As an avian example, French researchers recently pointed to the decline of insects (estimated at about -80%) as the main cause for the dramatic collapse of bird species in their countryside over the last decade – declines measured at over a third, and in some cases two-thirds.

Rachel Carson sparked monumental change in the 1960’s as she called out the role of toxic pesticides in ecosystem collapse with her seminal work, Silent Spring. Despite the positive influence her work had on illuminating the problem of environmental contaminants, her ominous predictions are being invoked in observational research. Yamamuro et al. end their paper with a reference to Carson, “She wrote: ‘These sprays, dusts and aerosols are now applied almost universally to farms, gardens, forests and homes – nonselective chemicals that have the power to kill every insect, the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, to still the song of birds and the leaping of fish in the streams.’ The ecological and economic impact of neonicotinoids on the inland waters of Japan confirms Carson’s prophecy.”

There is plenty of evidence that toxic pesticides are causing cascading crises and plunging us into a future devoid of the richness that unpolluted ecosystems offer. We stand, as Carson once said, at a crossroad. Beyond Pesticides continues to advocate for organic farming as a healthy and economically viable alternative for people and the planet. While chemical-intensive agriculture is currently a major driver of biodiversity loss worldwide, organic practices can, conversely, bolster wild populations.

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

Source: Science

(Beyond Pesticides, November 5, 2019) Herbicide use is associated with an increased risk of developing cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, according to a meta-analysis published last month in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. For those working on farms and in other occupations with frequent exposure to herbicides, the risk is another in a long list of pesticide-induced diseases. Ultimately, researchers suggest, “A precautionary public health safety policy that includes preventive individual counselling and surveillance to workers exposed to pesticides may be advisable.”

Authors of the study conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on pesticide exposure and skin cancer, finding nine acceptable studies for analysis. These studies represent nearly 185,000 individuals, and included enough data to make a risk estimate and determine 95% confidence intervals. Although pesticides and insecticides in general were not associated with increased risk of skin cancer, general use of herbicides was (relative risk 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.36). Spouses whose partners work as pesticide applicators are also found to be at higher risk of developing cutaneous melanoma.

As skin cancer has increased significantly over the past 50 years, many appropriately point to the link between sun exposure and development of the disease. However, this research indicates that contact exposure to herbicides may be affecting risk. The authors point to studies finding links between skin adsorption of pesticides and exposure to UV radiation, as well as research that finds sunscreen itself may facilitate skin adsorption of pesticide residue.

A precautionary approach to this data would include a response from regulatory agencies that limits herbicide exposure to high risk populations like farmworkers and their families, or in the least increase monitoring of these individuals for skin cancer development. However, as recently as this month, the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has moved to roll back protections for farmworkers health. EPA is significantly shrinking Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs), buffer areas where individuals are not supposed to enter during a pesticide application.

Under the agency’s new rules, on-farm family members would be exempt from all aspects of the AEZ. EPA says this will allow farmers and their family “to decide whether to stay in their homes or …on their property during certain pesticide applications, rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining.”

Critics argue that it is the role of health and environmental regulatory agencies to promote precautionary actions among at risk individuals. In this sense, asking individuals without medical training or expertise to determine whether exposure to a toxic chemical is safe for them is a dereliction of EPA’s duty to protect public health.

Herbicide exposure is linked to a long list of health effects, which are documented in Beyond Pesticides Pesticide- Induced Diseases Database. The peer-reviewed research cited in the database reveals elevated rates of chronic diseases among individuals exposed to pesticides, with increasing numbers of studies associated with both specific illnesses and a range of illnesses. Some of these diseases are at very high and, perhaps, epidemic proportions, indicating an urgent need for public policy at all levels–local, state, and national—to end dependency on toxic pesticides and replace their use with sustainable, organic practices.

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

Source: Dermatology Advisor, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

(Beyond Pesticides, November 4, 2019) In recognition of the harm that climate change is causing to communities, the U.S. House of Representatives formed the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis to “investigate, study, make findings, and develop recommendations on policies, strategies, and innovations to achieve substantial and permanent reductions in pollution and other activities that contribute to the climate crisis, which will honor our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet for future generations.”

Tell the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis to promote organic agriculture and land care.

Regenerative organic agriculture reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. In nonorganic, chemical-intensive agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions result from the use of nitrogen fertilizer, synthetic herbicides and insecticides, fossil fuel consumption associated with farm equipment, and the transportation of materials and products to and from the farm. The manufacture of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is a major source of energy use in chemical-intensive agriculture–the manufacture and use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers alone are responsible for as much as 10 percent of direct global agricultural emissions. This is important because pound-for-pound, nitrous oxide is 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide in warming the planet.

Besides reducing energy use, organic agriculture helps combat climate change by sequestering carbon in the soil. Organic agriculture also produces farms resilient to climate change because high soil organic matter content and mulching help to prevent nutrient and water loss. In addition, organic agriculture increases biodiversity, which is needed to meet the challenges of new insects, diseases, and weeds.

The same advantages accrue to other land management systems, such as city parks and playgrounds.

The Committee is seeking input in the form of responses to 13 questions by November 22. Among them are the following:

Cross-Cutting Policies Innovation (5a.) Where should Congress focus an innovation agenda for climate solutions? Please identify specific areas for federal investment and, where possible, recommend the scale of investment needed to achieve results in research, development and deployment.

Agriculture (6.) What policies should Congress adopt to reduce carbon pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions and maximize carbon storage in agriculture? (7.) What policies should Congress adopt to help farmers, ranchers, and natural resource managers adapt to the impacts of climate change?

Oceans, Forestry and Public Lands (8.) How should Congress update the laws governing management of federal lands, forests, and oceans to accelerate climate adaptation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maximize carbon storage?

Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases (9.) What policies should Congress adopt to reduce emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases, including methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases?

Carbon Removal (10.) How can Congress accelerate development and deployment of carbon removal technology to help achieve negative emissions?

Resilience and Adaptation (11.) What policies should Congress adopt to help communities become more resilient in response to climate change?

In order to promote organic management systems, the following actions are needed:

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

These same actions address our biodiversity crisis that is evidenced by crashes in insect and bird populations.

Tell the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis to promote organic agriculture and land care.

Letter to the Select Committee

I wish to address several of the issues raised by the Committee for public comment, particularly questions 5a, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The following actions are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect biodiversity, and increase resilience in the face of climate change.

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

Thank you for considering these suggestions.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2019) The recently published report Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Fiscal Year 2017 Pesticide Report, from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), provides data on the levels of pesticide residues that show up on the foods U.S. consumers eat. The report adds fuel to public concern about contamination of the food supply, and to discussion in the scientific and advocacy communities about what is and is not safe for human health. It is also a sobering reminder of just how much chemical-intensive agriculture depends on pesticides, whether insecticides, herbicides, or fungicides.

This FDA report has been prepared annually since 1987 and is based on the agency’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, which evaluates both domestically produced and imported human food samples, including fruit, vegetable, and animal products. As the report notes, “Three federal government agencies share responsibility for the regulation and oversight of pesticide chemical residues in or on food. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers (i.e., approves) the use of pesticides and establishes tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in or on food resulting from the use of the pesticides. Tolerances are the EPA-established maximum residue levels (MRLs) of a specific pesticide chemical that is permitted in or on a human or animal food in the United States. EPA also provides a strong U.S. preventive controls program by licensing pesticide applicators, conducting pesticide use inspections, and establishing and enforcing pesticide labeling provisions. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces tolerances in both import foods and domestic foods shipped in interstate commerce, except for meat, poultry, catfish, and certain egg products for which the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible. FDA also monitors pesticide chemical residue levels in commodities representative of the U.S. diet by carrying out market basket surveys under the Total Diet Study (TDS).”

Among the unsavory metrics in the 2017 report — based on samples from California, New York, Texas, Kansas, and Wisconsin — are that pesticide residues were found in 84% of domestic fruits, 53% of vegetables, 42% of grains, and 73% of samples categorized as “other” (nuts, seeds, oils, honey, candy, beverages, spices, multi-ingredient products, and dietary supplements). Small percentages (less than 3%) of domestic grains, fruits, and “other” products had “violative” levels of residues — those that register above the tolerances set by EPA. However, nearly 10% of vegetables harbored violative levels of pesticide residues.

Levels of residues in specific U.S. commodities tested include, e.g.: 88% of apples and apple juice; 87% of grapes, grape juice, and raisins; 91% of lemons and lemon juice; 92.6% of nectarines and nectarine juice; 84% of strawberries; 87% of kale; 82% of spinach; 86.6% of cucumbers; and 80% of refined oils.

For imported goods, samples of which came from more than 40 countries (including Mexico, Canada, China, and India), outcomes were both better and worse. Residue levels on imported fruits (as a category) were found on 52.3% of samples, as compared with 84% on domestic fruit. Grains came in at 23% with pesticide residue, whereas in U.S. samples, that figure was nearly 42%. On the other hand, domestic dairy and eggs registered only a 4.7% residue rate, while imports came in at 33.3%. Inexplicably, the report lists no outcomes for domestically harvested fish, while imported fish without any pesticide residue logged in at a noteworthy 82.5% residue free.

Across all categories, violative levels of pesticide residue were 3.8% for domestic products and 10.4% for imported goods. Those figures are functions, primarily, of a high violative reading for domestic vegetables (9.4%), and for imports, of high readings for grains (14.1%), fruits (7.9%), vegetables (12.5%), and “other” (8.2%).

What are all these pesticides found in the food supply? Across 6,069 samples, 221 discrete pesticide compounds were detected, including six that had never previously been found via the FDA monitoring program. Also detected, in 34 samples, was the infamous and banned-since-1972 DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), which speaks to its long persistence in the environment and to its continued use in some parts of Africa, Asia, and South America.

Neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides were found across a multitude of samples; some of those include: imidacloprid (in 470 samples), thiamexotham (257), acetamiprid (206), clothianidin (145), and dinotefuran (45). Fungicides were found abundantly: boscalid (438), azoxystrobin (348), pyraclostrobin (293), fludioxonil (279), tebuconazole (253), and many others. Organophosphates were also well represented, e.g.: chlorpyrifos (265), malathion (191), phosmet (44), diazinon (38), and dichlorvos (22). To read more about any of these compounds visit Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.

Earlier in 2019, Friends of the Earth released a report — Toxic Secret — on pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply. Its more-narrow focus found that oat cereals, apples, applesauce, spinach, and pinto beans at four huge food retailers (Kroger, Walmart, Albertson’s, and Costco) contained residues of glyphosate, organophosphates, and neonicotinoids. As Beyond Pesticides reported, “The average level of glyphosate found in cereal samples (360 parts per billion) was more than twice the level set by scientists at Environmental Working Group for lifetime cancer risk for children. The average level of glyphosate found in pinto beans (509 ppb) was more than 4.5 times the benchmark.”

Remarkably, despite the presence of pesticides in so much of the food supply (as the FDA report shows), federal regulators continue to say, basically, “not to worry.” EPA maintains that as long as a residue registers under whatever the “tolerance” is for a particular compound, the pesticide does not pose significant risk to human health. There are several problems with this stance. One is that there is abundant evidence that pesticides do pose risks to human health, never mind to other organisms and the environment broadly. Another is that EPA’s methodologies for assessing risk are flawed and inadequate, as Beyond Pesticides has reported repeatedly.

Too, some tolerances have risen over time — not typically because of science, but because of industry pressure. As Cary Gillam reports for EcoWatch, “The EPA has approved several increases allowed for glyphosate residues in food, for instance. As well, the agency often makes the determination that it need not comply with a legal requirement that states the EPA ‘shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children’ in setting the legal levels for pesticide residues. The EPA has overridden that requirement in the setting of many pesticide tolerances, saying no such extra margin of safety is needed to protect children.” Of course, as tolerances climb, violative levels will be less frequently reported by FDA; and given the chemical industry’s influence on the administration and Congress, the greater the amounts of these chemical residues that will show up in the food supply.

The unholy, back-channel alliances between industry and regulatory agencies is old news, but it has become more robust since the advent of the Trump administration, which appears determined to advantage industry over human well-being by rolling back regulations, reducing enforcement of existing rules, and exploiting opportunities to diminish the role of science in regulation. Both the science community and the public are growing increasingly concerned with the saturation of the food supply with chemical inputs. The issue has gained greater visibility recently with well-publicized lawsuits brought against the makers of glyphosate-based herbicides.

Beyond Pesticides has monitored the pesticide “universe” for decades, reports on research and regulatory developments, and advocates for a transition to agricultural and other systems that don’t depend on toxic inputs. Stay current through the website, the Daily News Blog, and the journal, Pesticides and You, and consider becoming a member of Beyond Pesticides.

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

Sources: https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticides-fruits-vegetables-fda-health-2641133675.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 and https://www.ecowatch.com/pesticides-fruits-vegetables-fda-health-2641133675.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2019) Last week the U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must assess the risk eight toxic pesticides pose to protected organisms: atrazine, carbaryl, methomyl, and simazine as well as rodenticides brodifacoum, bromadiolone, warfarin and zinc phosphide.

The plaintiffs, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) asserted that EPA and its then administrator Scott Pruitt violated duties under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by not consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service in registering these pesticides. The history of this case extends over 8 years. Last year, the court rejected EPA’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit.

According to CBD’s press release, “Under the agreement the agency must complete assessments of four pesticides, including atrazine, the nation’s second most-used pesticide, by 2021. Assessments of four rodenticides, including the widely used rat poison brodifacoum, must be finalized in 2024.”

Stephanie Parent, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said “This important step is only the start. We still have work to do to make sure the EPA addresses the harms of all pesticides, as the law requires.

EPA was created after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring brought attention to the detrimental impact of the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Instead of heeding the original call of duty that its name implies, advocates say EPA is ignoring the harm these toxic chemicals cause to people and the environment until brought to heel by the courts.

“It is inappropriate that environmental groups are forced to expend time and resources in order to get EPA to simply do its job as the law requires,” says Barbara Dale, Public Education Manager at Beyond Pesticides.

Some alarming “fun” facts on a few of these toxic chemicals:

>> Atrazine is the second most widely-used herbicide in the U.S., and it is a known endocrine disruptor. Even at low levels it chemically castrates frogs. Beyond Pesticides wrote about this chemical last December, “During peak use, atrazine levels in drinking water [in the Midwest] have been recorded at three to seven times above the legal limit. In addition to the well documented impact on the environment, recent studies have linked prolonged pesticide exposure to not only shortened gestation and preterm birth for women, but also neurodevelopment delays in children.”

>> Carbaryl is classified as a likely carcinogen by EPA. The production of carbaryl can involve using methyl isocyanate (MIC) as an intermediary; a leak of MIC during production of carbaryl caused the Bhopal disaster, the most lethal industrial accident in history with over 500,000 injuries and 20,000 fatalities – 8,000 of which were instant. Wikileaks revealed in 2012 that Dow Chemical engaged an intelligence research organization to spy on activists involved in advocating for victims of the Bhopal disaster.

>> Anticoagulant rodenticides such as brodifacoum travel up the food chain and cause secondary poisonings to mammals and birds.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a regulatory approach to pesticides that prohibits high-risk chemical practices. Rather, the federal regulatory framework should focus on safer, effective alternatives, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the vast majority of toxic chemicals.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, October 30^th, 2019) This month, the Thai government moved to ban some toxic chemicals out of concern for the health of its residents and environment. In response, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Undersecretary Ted McKinney sent a document to Thailand’s Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha pushing back on their plan. As the Thai government makes changes to protect the health and represent the will of the people, the U.S. acts on behalf of its allegiance to agrichemical companies on an international stage.

After powerful and sustained activism from local advocacy groups such as BioThai, the Thai government decided to upgrade glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, and paraquat from Type 3 toxic substances to Type 4, meaning these chemicals will no longer be allowed to be produced, imported, or possessed in the country. Witoon Lianchamroon, director of BioThai, says glyphosate and paraquat “contaminate our water, the soil, and some species like crab or fish or frog. These two main herbicides cover around half of the total pesticide use in the country and they cause a lot of problems.”

The ban was approved by the National Hazardous Substances Committee, made up of 29 experts in the field, on October 22. Beginning December 1, the ban will go into effect and residents will be asked to turn in leftover products to the government to be destroyed. While the ban doesn’t include agricultural products, Thai farmers who oppose the change are asking that Thailand also embargo imports of crops from countries that allow the chemicals – such as the U.S.

“Should a ban be implemented, it would severely impact Thailand’s imports of agricultural commodities such as soybeans and wheats,” wrote Mr. McKinney. According to USDA data, in 2018 the US exported $593 million worth of soybeans and $180 million of wheat to Thailand. Mr. McKinney asked Thailand to instead maintain the current maximum residue limits and postpone the ban before “fully considering the scientific evidence” regarding – particularly – glyphosate. The chemical company Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, exports glyphosate-based products to Thai farmers.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen” in 2015. A study published earlier this month by an international team of researchers found the chemical had the potential to induce breast cancer when combined with other risk factors. US courts are finding glyphosate guilty, awarding millions of dollars to individuals who trace their cancer to the use of the chemical.

Despite all evidence of harm, the US government remains internationally adamant in its defense of toxic chemicals. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue was vocal on behalf of Bayer in April when Vietnam began its process of banning glyphosate due to health concerns in April. President Donald Trump urged Columbia to lift its restrictions on glyphosate aerial spraying in August, reportedly offering more funding if the aerial sprays were allowed to resume.

An official in the pesticide regulatory division at the Thai Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives told Bloomberg Environment that Thailand is moving toward organic farming and must destroy the chemicals because, “it’s not safe, not healthy.”

Other Thai officials also stand by the ban. Public health minister Anutin Charnvirak told Reuters, “Our job is to take care of the people’s health.” Mananya Thaiset, deputy minister of agriculture, said, “It’s not right to force us to take what we don’t want.”

The successful work of grassroots activists in Thailand offers encouragement to the global community of individuals who are fighting to create a world free of toxic pesticides. While the Trump Administration is unsympathetic to pesticide issues at best and corrupt at worst, it is still possible to build momentum in your local community and build power for the future. Read our Resources for a Pesticide-Free Community to start, and then give us a call at 202-543-5450 or email [email protected] for support.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing changes to the way farmworkers and bystanders are protected from toxic pesticide applications, per an announcement published on the agency’s website last week. Billed as “improvements” that will “reduce regulatory burdens for farmers,” the actions would instead significantly shrink Application Exclusion Zones (AEZs), buffer areas where individuals are not supposed to enter during a pesticide application.

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

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

• Make AEZs applicable only to a farm owners’ property. Under the current rules, pesticide handlers were required to keep individuals out of an area where pesticides were applied both on and off site.
• Exempt on-farm family members from all aspects of the AEZ. EPA says this will allow farmers and their family “to decide whether to stay in their homes or …on their property during certain pesticide applications, rather than compelling them to leave even when they feel safe remaining.” Critics note that feeling safe and being safe are very different, one based on emotions and the other on science.
• Clarify that suspended pesticide applications may continue when an individual leaves an AEZ, and revise criteria around determining when a pesticide application is subject to an AEZ. Opposition to the proposal indicates these changes backtrack safety requirements and would shrink the type of pesticide applications covered under this rule.

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

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

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

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

For more information on the plight and daily struggle farmworkers face as they work to put food on the tables of every America, see Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage.

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

Source: EPA Press Release, Politico

(Beyond Pesticides, October 27, 2019) The spraying of toxic herbicides for weed control on campuses exposes students, workers and the general public to chemicals linked to health problems such as cancer and reproductive issues.

Any day now, the University of California system will decide whether or not to continue using glyphosate and other toxic herbicides — including Roundup — on their campuses.

The University of California temporarily banned the use of cancer-causing glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, but the ban doesn’t stop the UC system from using other dangerous herbicides. Student activists are asking UC to commit to transitioning to all organic land care maintenance on all University of California campuses by 2025. This could be an opportunity for the University of California, which prides itself on its commitment to sustainability, to join other universities such as Harvard, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, and others as a national leader in the field.

Tell University of California President Napolitano to issue a full, permanent ban on toxic herbicides and shift the UC land care system to organic!

Message to University of California President

First of all, I would like to thank you for temporarily suspending the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on the University of California campuses and for establishing an Herbicide task force in order to consider long-term approaches to land management.

In anticipation of your Nov. 1 decision I am writing to ask you – for the sake of future generations – to permanently ban toxic herbicides and commit to transitioning to all organic land care maintenance on all University of California campuses by 2025. Organic alternatives exist. This could be an opportunity for the University of California, which prides itself on its commitment to sustainability, to join other universities such as Harvard, the University of Colorado at Boulder, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, and others as a national leader in the field.

I understand that you will be stepping down after August 2020. This is an opportunity to leave a legacy in the field of sustainability and stand up for public health and the environment. We can’t wait to celebrate with you.

Thank you,

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2019) Washington State officials have approved an agreement that will prevent oyster growers farming in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor from spraying the neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticide, imidacloprid, on tidal flats to kill native burrowing shrimp. The development comes after years of discussion and dispute among the Washington State Department of Ecology, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association.

Beyond Pesticides has advocated for protection of these relatively pristine estuary areas from toxic pesticides since 2002, when it worked for (ultimately successful) elimination of the use of the highly toxic carbaryl against the shrimp. More recently, it has reported and weighed in frequently on use of imidacloprid and efforts to eliminate its use, as well as on broad contamination of waterways by neonics.

Neonics are well documented to be a huge threat to pollinators and other nontarget organisms, as well as to the environment at large. Imidacloprid is banned by the European Union for outdoor use, and Canada is scheduled to announce details by year’s end on its implementation of a phaseout of neonics. Washington State’s own risk assessment study found that use of imidacloprid on tidelands showed “immediate adverse, unavoidable impacts to juvenile worms, crustaceans, and shellfish to the areas treated . . . and the nearby areas covered by incoming tides. . . . This includes the commercially important Dungeness crab, which is also killed by imidacloprid, as are the native burrowing shrimp.”

The native burrowing shrimp at issue actually comprise two species: the ghost shrimp and the mud shrimp, which live in Pacific tidal flats from California to Alaska — the same habitat used for oyster (and clam) farming. The mud shrimp are on the decline because of a parasitic infection, but ghost shrimp numbers are rising — due in part to alterations in the watershed caused by human activity, such as logging and farming, and to changing climatic conditions. (For more on those changes, and the ecological imbalances that have given rise to this overpopulation of burrowing shrimp, see the “Out of Balance!” section of this Pesticides and You article.)

The shrimp imperil oyster farming because as many as 100 per square meter burrow as much as a meter deep into the sands of the tidal flats and destabilize the seabed. As they feed, they “are essentially mining the sand,” says Oregon State University Scientist John Chapman. The result is that the sands of the flats shift and become muck-like, often causing mature oysters to sink into the muck and get smothered.

The agreement, between the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association (WGHOGA), establishes a working group — comprising state and industry officials and an environmental representative — that would be charged with developing an alternative plan for dealing with the burrowing shrimp. Ideas being considered include deep mechanical harrowing of the tideland sediments; “dye studies” to understand better how any chemicals applied would move through the estuaries; a non-native parasite that feeds on the shrimp’s blood; and experiments with water temperature and salinity. Of course, any of those is likely to have environmental impacts beyond suppression of the shrimp. The settlement also creates resources for monitoring impacts of the burrowing shrimp on commercial oyster (and clam) operations in the two bodies of water.

The agreement was finalized in mid-October by the state Pollution Control Hearings Board. The accord came after years of both efforts by growers to ensure the ability to use the neonic treatment to protect their oyster crops, and advocacy by environmental and community groups against use of imidacloprid on such fragile ecosystems. In response to the agreement, Nathan Donley, a Center for Biological Diversity scientist, said, “Our beautiful coastline is no place to spray a dangerous pesticide that is notorious for contaminating water throughout the country. This important agreement will put an end to the disastrous plan to spray imidacloprid in some of our state’s most important and fragile waters.”

When carbaryl was phased out in 2002 (on a use-reduction schedule of 10% by 2003, 30% by 2004, 30% by 2005, and 100% by 2012), growers began to request permission to use imidacloprid — a neurotoxin that can harm marine life, as well as other species. The compound was not developed for use on or near water bodies, but in 2013, EPA nevertheless approved growers’ requests to use it, and in 2015, Ecology issued a permit to apply imidacloprid to up to 2,000 acres of tidelands in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

Public response was quick and plentiful, and the issue gained unusual notoriety when a number of high-profile Seattle chefs refused to purchase and use oysters contaminated with the neonic. A groundswell of public comment ensued, with thousands contacting state officials with their objections, and in 2018, Ecology temporarily denied growers’ request for a permit allowing annual application of imidacloprid to as many as 500 acres. WGHOGA then appealed that denial. Several nonprofits were involved in the appeal process as intervenors advocating against permitting of imidacloprid: the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, and the Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. The National Marine Fisheries Service also opposed use of the compound because of its harms to marine life. With the announced agreement, WGHOGA has agreed to drop its appeal.

This does not mean that the potential for pesticide use against the shrimp has disappeared. The agreement calls for development of alternate means of control — including possible chemical means — and sets out a 2020 timetable for field trials of any alternative insecticides that might be effective. Further, Ecology and WGHOGA are asking the legislature for $650,000 for research efforts. Prior to now, attempts at alternative, non-pesticide controls, including, according to Aquaculture North America, “electric shock (the shrimp burrowed deeper), sprayed concrete (they poked through before it dried), propane in the burrows (it wouldn’t ignite), spicy habanero peppers, high pressure water hoses, even dynamite,” have been futile.

It is not hard to feel some sympathy for the oyster growers; the industry is more than 100 years old and is an important economic and cultural feature of southwest coastal Washington. As the The Astorian (a North Coast Oregon newspaper) reports, “Oyster aquaculture is the biggest-dollar contributor to a state shellfish-farming industry that generates nearly $150 million annually, according to a 2013 study, and in some rural areas of coastal Washington, such as Willapa Bay, is an important source of jobs and tax revenue.” In early 2019, Oregon Public Broadcasting covered the issue through the lens of a longstanding oystering family business, which is facing, at best, an uncertain future, and at worst, the dissolution of a multi-generational family business that employs local workers. Kathleen Nisbet-Moncy, a member of the family who helps run the business, said, “This is our livelihood. It’s really sad to see something you worked so hard to create, to see it taken over by a predator you have no control over.”

As the above-referenced article in Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You, identifies, human activity has had a huge impact on the ecological dynamics of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor estuaries, including loss of native predators, increases in invasive species, and slumping native shellfish production. The article explains, “In the mid-1800s, logging began altering stream morphology and increasing sediment load. Effluent from pulp mills was also dumped into waterways, impairing water quality and contributing to the decline of fish populations like salmon and sturgeon. Floodplains were cleared for agriculture and then later urbanized, leading to a loss of the natural riparian vegetation At the same time, the native Washington oyster, Ostrea lurida, also known as the Olympia oyster, began to decline due to over-harvesting and declining environmental quality. This led oystermen [sic] to import the Pacific oyster from Japan, [which] has thrived in the region. Artificial oyster beds were also created to help boost productivity. Although native to the region, by the early 1920s burrowing shrimp began growing in numbers. Some believe that changes in oystering practices led to the shrimp’s success. The natural layer of shell deposits upon which oysters attach is typically removed during harvest, exposing bare sediment, and allowing the shrimp to burrow. This, coupled with the declining predatory fish populations in the bay, led to an explosion in shrimp populations.”

Aquaculture North America notes, “Things weren’t so bad when the native Olympia oysters prevailed. Olympias clustered together and formed reef structures that float[ed] on the sand. Olympias and the burrowing shrimp existed together. But in the 1920s, Olympias in the Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor oyster beds were overfished to extinction. . . . Growers came in and replaced them with the faster growing Pacific (Japanese) oyster and moved up the tide zone. ‘The native Olympias grew in the low intertidal and subtidal zones,’ explains Brett Dumbauld of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Service. ‘The Japanese oysters are planted higher in the intertidal zone where the shrimp are more abundant.’”

As in so many industries that harvest or extract natural resources, part of the problem may be due to “simple” overexploitation. Intensive cultivation of oysters and other shellfish can harm other forms of floral and faunal marine life in tidal areas, and change the functional dynamics of local ecosystems so that, for example, predator–prey populations are no longer in equilibrium. When chemical “controls” are added to the equation, additional impacts and dysfunction can be catalyzed. There are rarely any quick-and-ready fixes for such ecosystems brought out of functional balance. Long-term solutions nearly always require broad changes in systems and approaches; the tidal habitat that has supported the oyster industry in southwest Washington is no exception.

A holistic approach to the problem could include enhancing and restoring the streams that spill into these bays and harbors, and continuing the ongoing work of restoring native salmon species that have been so decimated over the past two decades. As Beyond Pesticides noted in 2015, “Stream enhancement and restoration improve habitat for fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. These species can help control bountiful populations of burrowing shrimp and aquatic plants. Unfortunately, chemicals have been employed to reduce invasive plant pressures, and the borrowing shrimp. But the use of these chemicals only serves to further threaten the long-term health of the sensitive ecosystem by adversely affecting other non-target species, and potentially creating other out of balance communities. It is important that non-chemical options be explored, such as mechanical removal of invasive plants, and encouraging the revival of native fish and the development of natural oyster beds to suppress shrimp populations.”

Andrew Hawley of the Western Environmental Law Center opined, “Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor are unique and fragile places, and we’re happy Ecology listened to the scientists who study these poisons and their effects on ecosystems. Some oyster and clam growers have successfully achieved a balance between the shrimp and their farmed shellfish without use of dangerous pesticides, and that should be model going forward.”

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

Sources: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/agreement-protects-willapa-bay-grays-harbor-spraying-dangerous-pesticide-2019-10-21/, https://www.dailyastorian.com/oyster-growers-agree-to-stop-use-of-insecticide-in-willapa/article_9e8f43e6-f440-11e9-ac96-9f2a125b8551.html, and https://www.aquaculturenorthamerica.com/burrowing-shrimp-taking-over-oyster-leases-1257/

(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2019) Fish and fruit are undoubtedly healthy foods, but modern-day contamination is leading scientists to caution pregnant mothers and young children to stick within current dietary guidelines, or switch to organic, in order to avoid adverse health effects. This new public health message is based on research published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives by scientists from University of Southern California (USC) and several European Countries, finding that overconsumption of fish and fruits leads to higher levels of contamination with toxic persistent chemicals.

“During gestation and early development, the fetus and the child, respectively, are vulnerable to the effects of environmental chemicals, said Lida Chatzi, MD, associate professor of preventive medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC. “A balanced diet during these periods is also critical for optimal nutritional status, but what to eat, and how much, are critical questions.”

Scientists studied a cohort of 1,288 children (between 6 and 11 years) and 818 pregnant mothers from six European countries, who were provided questionnaires to assess their weekly diet. Blood levels of a range of environmental toxicants, including organochlorine compounds like PCB, PFHSs, PFOS, PFOA, pesticides like DDT and DDE, and heavy metals including mercury and arsenic were tested. Likewise, urinary levels for industrial compounds like phthalates and parabens, as well as organophosphate pesticides, were also measured by researchers.

Results found that high self-reported fish and seafood consumption (more than 4 times per week) is associated with greater contamination by several chemicals and heavy metals when compared to those who reportedly ate fish less than 2 times per week. Pregnant mothers in the high consumption group had levels of PCBs 15% higher, mercury 89% and arsenic 487% higher than the low consumption group, with similar results seen for the children tested.

Researchers also found positive associations between eating fruit and levels of organophosphate pesticides in urine for both children and pregnant women. Pregnant women following the recommended serving of fruit – more than two servings per day – have higher pesticide metabolites in their urine than those who have lower fruit consumption. However, children that reportedly eat organic food at least once per week display lower urinary pesticide levels than those who do not eat organic food.

“The choice of organic over conventionally grown fruits contributed to lower exposures of pesticides and phthalates, while retaining the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption,” said Dr. Chatzi. “We believe the results carry important public health messages related to the avoidance of excess exposure to environmental contaminants with toxic effects on humans.”

This is far from the first study showing that an organic diet lowers pesticide levels in the body: A 2014 investigation found lower pesticide residue levels after a week-long shift to an organic diet; a 2015 study that found that adults who consumed organic produce had lower urinary levels of organophosphate residues, and another in 2015 that concluded that a switch to an organic diet reduced the body burden of pesticides in children, especially those in low-income urban, and in agricultural families.

Changes in our diet and food choices can be an effective route to avoid excess exposure to environmental chemicals,” said study co-author Eleni Papadopoulou, PhD, a researcher from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. “Understanding sources of dietary exposures to environmental chemicals can inform exposure assessment and identify intervention strategies to reduce exposure.”

While cutting out fish and fruits all together is not recommended, moderation within dietary guidelines and a switch to organic, respectively, appears to be a prudent approach to protect long-term health.

Eating organic is also about more than our own health – buying organic food supports an agricultural approach to reduces farmworker exposure to toxic pesticides, and stops them from poisoning birds, bees and other pollinators, and reduces pollutants in our waterways. For more information on why organic is the right choice for your health and the wider environment, see Beyond Pesticides Eating with a Conscience. Database.

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

Source: USC News Press Release, Environmental Health Perspectives (peer reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2019) Bees provide benefits to farmers that outweigh synthetic inputs, according to a large-scale field study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B earlier this month. Addressing the ongoing question of how much natural ecosystem services are worth, scientists analyzed the costs and benefits of biodiversity versus agrichemicals. Researchers found the value pollinators add to oilseed rape (OSR) production by increasing yields is higher than synthetic chemical inputs, which are costly to farmers and decrease beneficial insect abundance. The title of the study touts the impressive findings, “Bee pollination outperforms pesticides for oilseed crop production and profitability.”

Researchers collected data over six years from 294 OSR fields in France with various levels of soil quality, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and pollinator abundance. They measured pollinator biodiversity with nets and traps at the field sites. Farmers offered data on yield, costs, and profits. Using linear models fitted to the large data set, the study analyzed combined effects of inputs on OSR yield and gross margin. Bee abundance was the only variable that had a positive effect on gross margins.

Pollination is an ecosystem service that benefits one out of three agricultural crops. Studies from Ireland show that insect pollination can increase OSR yield up to 35%, with a value of 2.6 million Euros per year in the whole nation. However, there are few studies that have attempted to analyze the net benefits of pollinators versus chemical inputs in agriculture. The researchers state, “Based on a very large dataset spanning 4 and 6 years, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the synergy and antagonism between agrochemical applications and biodiversity, and their effects on yield and income.”

The region in France where the study was conducted is rich in pollinators, with over 250 native bees. In fields that hosted plenty of these bumbling workers, gross margins were an average of 15% higher than fields with lower pollinator diversity and could increase margins up to 40%. The use of insecticides is related to decreased bee abundance and is harmful to pollinators, but the research noted that productivity lost due to the use of pesticides could be offset with additional synthetic nitrogen. The benefit of using synthetic inputs to increase productivity, however, did not compensate for the cost of the chemicals. Interestingly, while the use of insecticides did reduce the number of agricultural pests, this study found no relationship between decreased pests and effect on yield.

This study offers fodder for the agroecology movement that touts the value of natural systems over synthetic inputs. As the study says, “Based on a large scale field survey, our results therefore support a ‘win-win-win’ balance between crop production, farm income and the environment.” The scientists encourage future studies in various farming areas as the bioregion in France is not necessarily ubiquitous.

As insect populations plummet worldwide, it is more important than ever to recognize the incredible wealth that biodiversity adds to our environment and, perhaps more tangibly, dinner plates. What more, various studies have now shown that toxic pesticides do not increase productivity or add economic benefit to farmers. Organic agriculture, which avoids the use of toxic chemicals, is a booming industry that supports farmers, pollinators, and consumers alike.

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

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

Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society B