(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2019) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a low-key announcement on March 19 suggesting that it may change its handling of requests from states to exert stricter controls on use of pesticides than the federal agency sets out in its registration of the compounds — by disapproving them. This is potentially a big deal because it signals that the agency will be less-kindly disposed to states’ desires to establish either somewhat different parameters of use based on local conditions and needs, or more-stringent regulations on pesticide use than those set out by federal regulators. This issue of preemption of localities’ desires to protect their populations and environment has become an increasingly dynamic frontier at the nexus of pesticide use, health, and environment. Beyond Pesticides has written more frequently about this issue in recent years as the tension between centralized, federal regulation and more-local regulation has risen; see more below.

EPA appears distressed by some of the approximately 300 annual requests it gets to make some adjustment to the federal regulation. This can happen under Section 24(c) of FIFRA, which allows for a Special Local Need Label, which can be requested under a variety of conditions, including when a “federally registered pesticide a) is not available in the state for the desired site(s) to adequately control the target pest(s), or b) cannot be applied without causing unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, or c) is necessary to maintain resistance management, or d) could be replaced by a formulation that poses less risk to man [sic] or the environment.”

Some states assign some rulemaking authority over pesticide use to specific state entities, and use that authority to institute additional restrictions on pesticide use. But states do sometimes go to EPA for a 24(c) Special Local Need Label.

EPA seems to be signaling its disinclination toward those requests that seek to “narrow the federal label,” i.e., set a standard or regulation more stringent than the federal registration process and labeling does (e.g., greater applicator training requirements, a foreshortened window during which use is allowed, or reducing the number of applications allowed by the federal label). EPA said it will not institute any changes for the 2019 growing season and will set a public comment period before changes are made, but noted it is “re-evaluating its approach to reviewing . . . [such] requests and the circumstances under which it will exercise its authority to disapprove those requests.”

This is the text of the EPA announcement: “This is the time of year that EPA receives many special local needs registration requests from states under section 24(c) of FIFRA. Section 24(c) states that “A State may provide registration for additional uses of federally registered pesticides formulated for distribution and use within the State to meet special local needs . . .” EPA currently receives approximately 300 24(c) requests annually. Many of these requests are for additional uses not considered by the federal label – e.g., applying the pesticide to a different crop to address an outbreak of disease, adding an alternative application method that suits the practices of that state, or adding a new pest species that is not on the federal label. However, some requests are to narrow the federal label, such as to add a more restrictive cut-off date, to add training and certification requirements, or to restrict the use directions by limiting the number of treatments permitted by the federal label.

“Due to the fact that section 24(a) allows states to regulate the use of any federally registered pesticide, and the fact that some states have instead used 24(c) to implement cut-off dates (and/or impose other restrictions), EPA is now re-evaluating its approach to reviewing 24(c) requests and the circumstances under which it will exercise its authority to disapprove those requests. Before making any changes in this regard, EPA intends to take public comment on any potential new approaches before adopting them.

“EPA is not making any immediate changes in this area and does not expect any potential changes will impact 24(c) requests that states submit ahead of the 2019 growing season.”

The regulation of pesticide use is a multi-variate enterprise; what follows here is a brief primer: EPA is primarily responsible for regulation of pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides) under FIFRA (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The EPA looks at what potential human health and environmental impacts might be associated with use of a pesticide. It is supposed to do so by evaluating — on the basis of scientific studies that investigate the matter — whether compounds proposed for use may cause adverse effects on humans or the environment. It is charged with approving only those that cause “no unreasonable adverse effects, taking into account the risks and benefits of pesticide use.” (This, of course, begs the question: what are “reasonable” adverse effects?) In its evaluations, the agency also uses the National Research Council’s four-step process for human health risk assessment, which includes: (1) hazard identification, (2) dose-response assessment, (3) exposure assessment, and (4) risk characterization.

If a pesticide meets the “no unreasonable adverse effects” requirements, it can be “registered,” which means approved, for use within prescribed limits and parameters. When registered, a pesticide acquires its “federal label,” which sets out the requirements for, and limitations on, its use. In addition, pesticides are assigned a Toxicity Class, based on their acute toxicity; these include: Categories I (highly toxic and severely irritating), II (moderately toxic and moderately irritating), III (slightly toxic and slightly irritating), and IV (practically nontoxic and not an irritant). “Signal words” must be used on the labels of categories I–III and are, respectively, “Danger,” “Warning,” and “Caution.” Once registered, pesticides must be reviewed every 15 years to ensure that they continue to meet these requirements.

FIFRA was amended by the 1996 FQPA, which mandated a health-based standard for pesticides used on and in food; created protections for infants; expedited the approval process for pesticides deemed “safe”; incentivized development of safer pesticides; and required that pesticide registrations remain current. In addition to the EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) share some responsibility for regulation, though it all ultimately falls to EPA to investigate and approve or disapprove use. They help establish standards, or tolerances, for the allowable levels of pesticide residues on food crops and in animal feed. The FQPA requires that, when setting tolerances, EPA establish a safety finding, meaning that a pesticide can be used only when there is “a reasonable certainty of no harm.”

Federal regulation of pesticide use has increasingly been challenged by localities, whether states, counties, cities, or towns — often with the advocacy of community and nonprofit groups — seeking greater levels of protection for residents and/or the local environment. Localities will establish stricter regulations, and nearly inevitably, pre-emption — the ability of a “higher” level of government to override laws of a lower level — becomes an issue. Pre-emption happens not only from the federal to state level; states often act to pre-empt county and municipal attempts to enact more-protective local regulation. Typically, a state, often spurred by complaints from trade associations or individual companies in the agrochemical industry, will litigate with the goal of state pre-emption of a local statute that seeks to rein in pesticide use in some way.

As Beyond Pesticides wrote in 2017 about an attempt by an Oregon county to ban aerial pesticide spraying: “The case points to the legal conundrum that localities face in trying to protect their residents, lands, and resources from the assaults of pesticides, GMOs (genetically modified organisms), factory farms, fracking sites, or a host of other ills that communities may find objectionable because of health, safety, and/or environmental concerns. As communities . . . initiate efforts to establish regulations that may be more protective than prevailing state laws are, states and, very often, corporations persistently challenge those initiatives, arguing that state statutes supersede local authority to regulate. Such deference to state authority and statute is referred to as preemption — the use of state law to nullify the authority of a “lower” level of government, or a specific statute or ordinance, on that preemptive basis.”

Other states and localities have also moved to establish more protective regulations, including Montgomery County, Maryland; Maine; and Connecticut. Localities also sometimes push back on state pre-emption action, as in the case of three communities in Illinois looking to have the state repeal its pre-emption statute. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, covered by Beyond Pesticides, found that “state pesticide preemption laws ‘compromise public health and economic well-being’ by preventing localities from enacting pesticide use restrictions on private property that are more restrictive than their state’s regulations.”

POLITICO’s reporting notes that the greatest near-term impact of this signaled change in EPA’s responses to 24(c) requests might be the significant state regulation of dicamba, the Monsanto/BASF herbicide product that was formulated and marketed to deal with weeds that have developed resistance to the glyphosate-based Roundup. Dicamba, which is commonly used on soybean crops through the Midwest and South, has been the subject of great concern for the damage it causes to crops from drift, as well as for its health and environmental impacts.

A number of states, including Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, Illinois, and Arkansas, have instituted restrictions on its use that surpass those accompanying the federal registration of the compound. Texas, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina are all eyeing 24(c) requests for tighter application windows, additional training requirements, better record keeping, new fine structures for violations, and other modifications of the federal label. Arkansas banned dicamba use entirely in early 2018; that ban was upheld in the face of Monsanto’s lawsuit challenging it. Then, in November 2018, EPA stepped in to rule that the herbicide could be used in the state for two years, superseding the state ban. Such experiences with EPA around use of dicamba may be a harbinger of what is to come.

As reported by POLITICO, Rose Kachadoorian, president of the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials, said EPA is touting a remedy for a problem that doesn’t exist, adding that the system in place works fine, and that such a change would limit states’ rights. She notes, “A lot of these states want to ensure the continued availability of a technology. By having the ability to have increased training, cut-off dates and other restrictions, it’s actually enabling states to use that technology.”

Beyond Pesticides emphatically advocates for the ability of communities to protect themselves by adopting protective regulations, as well as nontoxic approaches to pest management of all kinds. For context and history on pre-emption in the U.S., see this 2013 Beyond Pesticides factsheet, which says, “State preemption laws effectively deny local residents and decision makers their democratic right to better protection when a community decides that minimum standards set by state and federal law are insufficient. Given this restriction, local jurisdictions nationwide have passed ordinances that restrict pesticide use on the towns public property, or school districts have limited pesticides on its land.”

From Beyond Pesticides’ March 14, 2019 Daily News Blog: “Beyond Pesticides looks toward a future when federal, state, and local governments are all accountable to the people they serve; when pesticide use across the board is recognized as unacceptably hazardous; when agrochemicals are rendered unnecessary due to the regeneration of healthy soils and resurgence of beneficial insect and microbial communities brought about by the widespread adoption of organic practices; when health is a right, and not a choice for some. As a step toward that endpoint, localities must be able to build the models we need to follow nationally and globally to ensure our future on this planet.”

Stay current on these issues through the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog, check out advocacy activity in any state, and join Beyond Pesticides in pushing for the local authority to create more-robust protections from pesticide use.

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

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/26/epa-pesticide-rules-1292061

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2019) A set of documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity reveals that the Trump administration has known for over a year – and actively concealed – that the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos jeopardizes the existence of 1,399 endangered species. Top officials at the U.S. Department of the Interior, including Acting Secretary David Bernhardt, were privy to and prevented the release of a “biological opinion,” completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in 2017, which contains a full analysis of the extensive environmental impacts wrought by three organophosphate insecticides.

While chlorpyrifos is the worst of the three, the censored biological opinion includes similarly concerning findings for two other organophosphate pesticides, malathion and diazinon, which are currently jeopardizing 1,284 and 175 species, respectively. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that that all organophosphates have a common mechanisms of effect and therefore the multiple exposures to these pesticides lead to a cumulative risk.

“It’s outrageous that Trump, Bernhardt and the industry hacks inhabiting this administration are speeding the extinction of nearly 1,400 endangered species by refusing to take any action on chlorpyrifos,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). “If political appointees weren’t stopping the government’s own scientists from doing their jobs, this brain-damaging, wildlife-killing horror of a pesticide would already be banned.”

Mr. Bernhardt, whose nomination for Secretary of the Interior may be confirmed today, led the Department of the Interior’s effort to block the release of these critical findings. According to documents obtained by CBD through a Freedom of Information Act request, Mr. Bernhardt had six meetings with Fish and Wildlife in October of 2017, and was shown a recovered PowerPoint containing the findings of the three organophosphates’ widespread harms to endangered plants and animals. Following these meetings, Mr. Bernhardt helped to draft a letter stating that the assessment was not ready for release.

The FWS opinion, a compilation of nearly four years of rigorous scientific review, was not just a routine assessment; rather, it was the outcome of a legal settlement with CBD, which required EPA and FWS to make such assessments public by the end of 2017. In April of 2017, Dow AgroSciences directly requested that the agencies abandon the assessment. Seven months later, under the direction of the Department of the Interior, FWS indefinitely delayed efforts to release the already completed assessment, thus failing to fulfill the terms of the settlement and their mandate under the Endangered Species Act.

This latest revelation adds to a trend of Trump administration officials interfering with a legally mandated environmental assessment and regulation. In fact, Mr. Bernhardt would have had less opportunity for the present interference, had it not been for former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s push, in collaboration with Dow Chemical, to keep chlorpyrifos on the market in 2017.

Under the Obama administration, EPA announced its intent to cancel agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos due to strong evidence of harm to the brain and proper development of children. This move itself was the result of a petition and hard fought legal case by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network.

With the election of Trump, however, EPA appointee Scott Pruitt made quick work of reversing the proposed ban and delaying any further action until 2021. In response to the about-face by the Pruitt EPA, Earthjustice and a coalition of other groups sued EPA for its delay. That lawsuit was successful, resulting in an order from the appeals court requiring EPA to ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days. However, under the leadership of  the current EPA Administrator, Andrew Wheeler, the agency appealed the decision. Though the evidence for damage is by now overwhelming, the case is still not closed. On Tuesday this week, the appeal was heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco.

“Even as more and more studies point to pesticides as the leading cause of disturbing drops in insect populations, the Trump administration is only concerned about protecting pesticide company profits,” said Ms. Burd, who sits on EPA’s pesticide program dialogue committee, a federal advisory committee. “This administration’s shameful political meddling in scientific assessments demands an independent investigation by the Department of the Interior’s inspector general and makes it clearer than ever that David Bernhardt’s not fit to lead the agency.”

In light of CBD’s findings, Beyond Pesticides signed on to a letter opposing David Bernhardt’s nomination for Secretary of the Interior. Beyond Pesticides holds the position that Mr. Bernhardt’s role in this unlawful censorship disqualifies him from holding power over critical regulatory agencies. The Department of Interior is tasked with conserving the nation’s natural resources and providing scientific information about natural hazards to address societal challenges.

According to Beyond Pesticides, it is insupportable that a man who has demonstrated his readiness to censor findings so critical to the health of our nation’s endangered wildlife should be charged with a role so vital to their protection. Join Beyond Pesticides in telling your Senators and representatives in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to oppose David Bernhardt’s nomination. Stay abreast of new legal and regulatory developments by following the Daily News Blog.

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

Source: CBD press release, March 26th, 2019

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2019) Exposure to commonly used pesticides in the womb and during the first year of life is linked to a higher risk of developing autism, according to the study, “Prenatal and infant exposure to ambient pesticides and autism spectrum disorder in children: population based case-control study,” published in the journal BMJ last week. Although the study does not reveal a causal link, it adds to previous literature highlighting autism risks from pesticide exposure, and reinforces calls to limit pesticide exposure during early life critical windows of vulnerability. The authors note their findings “support the need to avoid prenatal and infant exposure to pesticides to protect the developing child’s brain.”

Researchers used data from California’s records of autism disorder diagnosis and birth rates from 1998 to 2010. Roughly thirty-five thousand healthy patients acted as a control, while scientists identified nearly three thousand patients with an autism diagnosis, of which 445 also displayed a co-occurring intellectual disability.

Data was then drawn from California’s pesticide use recording database, and eleven pesticides (glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, acephate, malathion, permethrin, bifenthrin, methyl bromide, imidacloprid, avermectin, and myclobutanil) were analyzed for their use within 2000 meters (1.25 miles) of the homes of those involved in the study. Confounders (variables that can influence the statistical determination) such as the mothers age, socioeconomic status, and exposure to air pollution were adjusted for in the researchers’ model.

Results showed, when compared to a control group unexposed to the same pesticides during birth and infancy, modest increases in autism risk for exposure to glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion, avermectin and permethrin. For cases of autism with co-occuring intellectual disabilities, a more robust link was found for glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, permethrin, methyl bromide, and myclobutanil. A similar link was found between exposures within the first year of life, with glyphosate revealing the strongest association – increasing risk of autism by 50% for exposures occurring during infancy.

This is not the first study to link prenatal and early life pesticide exposure to autism and learning disabilities. In fact, previous studies have found stronger links than the present research. A 2014 study found that pregnant women living less than a mile from crops sprayed with organophosphate insecticides increased risk of their child receiving an autism diagnosis by 60%. For women in the second trimester, chlorpyrifos exposure increased autism risks by 3.3 times. Exposure to synthetic pyrethroids, like permethrin and bifentrhin, during the last trimester of pregnancy corresponded with an 87% increased risk of an autism diagnosis. A 2017 study found that those living in zip codes where pesticides are aerially sprayed for mosquitoes with synthetic pyrethroids were 37% more likely to have higher rates of children diagnosed with autism and other developmental delays.

In an editorial co-released with the study, psychiatrists from the University of Utah note that the study focuses on outdoor air in an agricultural region and that the results may not be generalized to other settings. They also indicate that in many communities, “reducing maternal exposure to zero for a pesticide such as glyphosate might be close to impossible.” Beyond Pesticides rejects these assertions.

If there is a problem with outdoor areas, similar issues are likely to arise when pregnant mothers and young children are exposed to pesticides in their homes. For example, the same synthetic pyrethoids applied over farm fields are also found in RAID and other bug sprays, and evidence suggests that once applied they can persist in one’s home for over a year. Previous studies have linked the presence of these chemicals in a child’s body to increased rates of behavioral and emotional problems, externalizing and internalizing disorders, and accelerated puberty in boys.

Reducing maternal exposure to glyphosate can be solved simply by eliminating its use and cancelling its registration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More and more studies are finding that not only can organic feed the world, is should be considered an essential part of building a sustainable future.

As lead author of the current study, Ondine von Ehrenstein, PhD, said to TIME, “I would hope that these findings would make some policy makers think about effective public health policy measures to protect populations who may be vulnerable and living in areas that could put them at higher risk. Raising awareness in the public may be the way to eventually change practices and agricultural policies.”

For more information on the link between pesticides and autism and other learning disabilities, see Beyond Pesticides Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: BMJ (peer reviewed journal), TIME

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2019) In a study investigating the carcinogenic effects of pesticide exposure by analyzing data on 316,270 farmers and farmworkers in the U.S., Norway, and France, researchers have identified elevated risk for non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and some subtypes, linking glyphosate and large B-cell lymphoma. Other pesticides linked to the disease include the pyrethroid deltamethrin and chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma; and terbufos and NHL overall.

Researchers also found “inverse associations of NHL overall with the broader groups of organochlorine insecticides and phenoxy herbicides, after adjusting for exposure to other pesticides”; such inverse associations were not found with active ingredients within these groups. The research underscores how complex the science of pesticide impacts on human health, and on cancer incidence, can be. To wit: in evaluating 14 different pesticide categories and 33 individual, active chemical ingredients, Maria E. Leon, et al., conclude that associations of pesticides with the development of NHL appear to be (NHL) subtype- and chemical-specific.

Published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in mid-March, the study, “Pesticide use and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoid malignancies in agricultural cohorts from France, Norway and the USA: a pooled analysis from the AGRICOH consortium,” uses data from three large cohort groups in AGRICOH, “an international consortium of agricultural cohort studies formed in October of 2010 to encourage and support data pooling to study disease-exposure associations that individual cohorts do not have sufficient statistical power to study.” AGRICOH is a program of the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

The three cohort groups included those from AGRICAN, a program of the Mutualité Sociale Agricole, the French national health insurance system of agricultural workers; CNAP, an aggregate group of farm holders and families compiled by Statistics Norway; and the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), which enrolled farmers and farm workers from Iowa and North Carolina.

Farmers and farmworkers are commonly exposed to a multitude of chemical compounds — especially pesticides (which term here includes herbicides and fungicides, as well) — through their work. Such activities can include: mixing and storing pesticide chemicals; applying them to seeds and/or fields; cleaning of related equipment; applications to livestock; and pest management in barns, soils, and animal compounds.

Notably, 75% of subjects in this study were male.

Each database exhibited linkages to cancer and mortality registries in their respective countries. Data were tracked for exposures to the subject pesticide (and other) compounds and the 33 active ingredients, and first incidence of cancer diagnoses. Subjects had no previous cancer diagnoses, except for an occasional non-melanoma skin cancer, before or during follow-up. The span of time frames for each study plus follow-up were as follows: AGRICAN, 2005–2009; CNAP, every five years from 1969 through 1989, with follow-up through 2011; and AHS, 1993–1997, with follow-up through 2010 in North Carolina, and 2011 in Iowa. Results of the study show that there were more than 2,400 cases of NHL across more than 3.5 million person-years of follow-up.

For this research, chemical groups and active ingredients were selected based on common use in at least two of the three countries. In addition, researchers gave priority to chemical groups and active ingredients for which some associative evidence with lympho-hematological malignancies has already been established, and to active ingredients not previously investigated in epidemiological studies. Glyphosate and dicamba were included in the study, as well as these categorical compounds: four insecticides (organophosphates, organochlorines, carbamates, and pyrethroids); seven herbicides (phenyl ureas, chloroacetanilides, dinitroanilines, phenoxys, thiocarbamates, triazines, and triazinones); two fungicides (dithiocarbamates and phthalimides); and arsenical compounds.

The ingredients (active, adjuvant, and “inert”) in those pesticides represent a variety of chemical compounds, and exposures to one — or more — of them may have any number of mechanisms of action in the human body, per se or in combination. The investigators in this study note that “pesticide exposure can induce genotoxicity, immunosuppression, oxidative stress and/or inflammatory effects, hormone receptor modulation and/or other biological responses that are important characteristics of carcinogens.” They make the case that because of this plethora of factors, individual active ingredients should be researched, as well as categories of pesticides.

The territory for research on pesticides’ potential carcinogenicity, and other impacts on human health, is almost ridiculously complicated. Yet there is some convergence across research that exposure to certain pesticides increases the risk of developing some cancers. The association that has been in a blinding spotlight for the past few years is that between exposures to glyphosate and/or glyphosate-based herbicides and risks of developing non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, in particular. Beyond Pesticides has covered the mounting evidence of the dangers of glyphosate; most recently, it reviewed a meta-study that suggests a compelling link between exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides and increased risk of NHL.

In addition, it has written extensively on developments in the science and regulatory arena, including:

• the IARC’s 2015 landmark designation of glyphosate as potentially carcinogenic
• evidence that the Environmental Protection Agency colluded with Monsanto (maker of Roundup, the most widely used glyphosate-based herbicide) to advantage industry, and that Monsanto had actually ghostwritten research that countered scientific conclusions on the cancer associations of the compound
• California’s 2017 listing of glyphosate under Proposition 65 as a probable carcinogen and a 2018 Appellate Court affirmation of its ability to do so

Beyond Pesticides has also tracked the falling dominoes in the glyphosate drama that is currently unfolding in the courts. In the summer of 2018, California groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson won a $289 million jury verdict against Monsanto for his development of NHL after consistent exposure to Roundup. The jury awarded him $39 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages, finding that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression.” That amount was later amended by the judge to a total $78 million. Most recently, in another court case, again in California, the jury found unanimously that Edwin Hardeman’s development of NHL was substantially caused by Roundup; the case moves next to award of damages to the plaintiff. On the commercial front, insurers are beginning to balk at the liability inherent in use of these herbicides; beyond these two cases, another 8,000+ glyphosate-based suits against manufacturers, sellers, and users are in queue. In addition, localities are taking steps to protect the health of residents by reining in the use of glyphosate, as has happened recently in Montgomery County, Maryland, and Miami, Florida.

Industry will not back down easily, making it critical that voices across all sectors speak out for increased regulation of these compounds, at the very least. With all the increased attention on glyphosate and its risks, there is more reason than ever to advocate for its elimination and the advent of less toxic alternatives. Beyond Pesticides is ready to help with organizing communities; contact us. We also urge those concerned about glyphosate exposure to support organic systems that do not rely on hazardous, carcinogenic pesticides. To learn about all the reasons to “go organic” and advocate for organic integrity, see Eating with a Conscience and Keeping Organic Strong.

It is possible that the use of glyphosate is approaching a tipping point, beyond which recognition of its dangers may result in greater public demand for regulation that’s protective, and withdrawal of the products from the marketplace. Beyond Pesticides remains determined to advance the cause of human and environmental health, and looks forward eagerly to that tipping point.

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

Source: https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz017/5382278

(Beyond Pesticides, March 25, 2019) EPA is using a regulatory loophole – the “treated articles exemption” – to allow systemic insecticides to be used in mass quantities, without regulating or labeling them as required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA does not currently assess adverse effects on the environment and public health caused by widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides delivered through seeds coated with the insecticides, resulting in widespread exposure to one of the most environmentally damaging classes of chemicals on the market.

Tell your Congressional delegation that EPA must fully regulate treated seeds to protect the environment and public health.

Pesticide-coated seeds are now ubiquitous, yet their far-reaching impacts on wildlife and human health continue to go unregulated. The introduction and spread of seed-delivered pesticides to major field crops, beginning around 2003, caused a massive increase in total neonicotinoid use nationwide. As of 2011, 34 to 44% of soybeans and 79 to 100% of maize acres were planted with coated seeds, accounting for an astounding 35-fold increase in nationwide neonicotinoid use from baseline rates prior to 2003 (Douglas and Tooker, 2015). Alarmingly, because the national pesticide survey conducted by the National Agricultural Statistics Service fails to include seed-applied neonicotinoids, i reports give the misleading impression that neonicotinoid use has declined over the past few decades.

Seed coating technologies have dramatically altered the landscape of pesticide contamination nationwide. U.S. croplands are currently planted with roughly 3.5 million kilograms of neonicotinoid-coated seeds each year (Tooker and Douglas, 2017). On top of causing massive increases in the total extent and per-acre rate of neonicotinoid application, seed treatments increase the proportion of neonicotinoids applied that enter soil and groundwater. From 90 to 99% of active ingredient delivered through seed treatments is lost to air, soil, and water –including environmental losses caused by the release of contaminated seed dust during mechanical planting (Wood and Goulson, 2017). Neonicotinoids in seed dust can reach concentrations up to five orders of magnitude higher than their acute contact LD50 values, leading to documented mass honey bee poisonings (Wood and Goulson, 2017). Inaction by EPA has led state regulators to avoid investigating these bee deaths from exposure to dust from planting seeds treated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

Neonicotinoid-coated seeds pose far-reaching risks to wildlife, above and beyond those posed by neonicotinoids delivered in other forms. In EPA’s 2017 ecological assessment of neonicotinoids, coated seeds in particular were identified as posing the highest dietary risks to birds –exceeding the agency’s level of concern as much as 200-fold.

There is substantial evidence that neonicotinoid-coated seeds cause unreasonable harm to aquatic invertebrates – the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems. An EPA Aquatic Risk Assessment for imidacloprid, released in 2017, found that imidacloprid threatens the health of U.S. waterways with significant risks to aquatic insects and cascading effects on aquatic fo od webs.

In addition to threatening wildlife, the widespread use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds also puts human health at risk. The mass leaching of seed-delivered pesticides may lead to unreasonable adverse effects on public health via contamination of drinking water. Recent studies have found neonicotinoids pervasive in finished drinking water (Klarich et al. 2017; Sultana et al. 2018). Alarmingly, University of Iowa researchers found that finished drinking water frequently contains metabolites of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid that have never been evaluated for their potential risks to human and environmental health. Experts warn that these metabolites may morph further into new forms of chlorinated disinfection byproducts during routine water treatment processes, with potential for high toxicity to humans due to loss of insect specificity.

The continued under-regulation of treated seeds is in violation of EPA’s federal mandate to regulate and fully assess the risks posed by pesticides as they are commonly applied.

Tell your Congressional delegation that EPA must fully regulate treated seeds to protect the environment and public health.

Letter to your members of Congress

I urge you to tell EPA to regulate systemic insecticides as they are most commonly applied through treated seeds, in order to comply with FIFRA and adequately protect the environment and public health. The agency is currently considering public comments on this issue and your voice is critical to public health and environmental protection.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under public scrutiny for failing to regulate pesticide-treated seeds, which by now comprise roughly 95% of total neonicotinoid use in the U.S. EPA is misusing a regulatory loophole – the “treated articles exemption” – to allow systemic insecticides to be used in mass quantities, without regulating or labeling them as required under FIFRA.

Seed coating technologies have dramatically altered the landscape of pesticide contamination nationwide. U.S. croplands are currently planted with roughly 3.5 million kilograms of neonicotinoid-coated seeds each year (Tooker and Douglas, 2017). On top of causing massive increases in the total extent and per-acre rate of neonicotinoid application, seed treatments increase the proportion of neonicotinoids applied that enter soil and groundwater. A review of the literature indicates that 90 to 99% of active ingredient delivered through seed treatments is lost to air, soil, and water –including environmental losses caused by the release of contaminated seed dust during mechanical planting (Wood and Goulson, 2017). Neonicotinoids in seed dust can reach concentrations up to five orders of magnitude higher than their acute contact LD50 values, leading to documented mass honey bee poisonings (Wood and Goulson, 2017). Inaction by EPA has led state regulators to avoid investigating these bee deaths from exposure to dust from planting seeds treated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

Treated seeds lead to unique exposures, such as through seed dust, and unique contamination of surrounding vegetation, soil, surface water and groundwater, with far-reaching consequences for wildlife and human health. The continued under-regulation of treated seeds is in violation of EPA’s federal mandate to regulate and fully assess the risks posed by pesticides as they are commonly applied.

Please tell EPA to fulfill its federal mandate and regulate pesticide-coated seeds, as they are commonly applied. Anything less falls short of adequate protection under the law.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2019) A two-year study, published March 14,  finds that field-relevant contamination with the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid causes reduced body weight and metabolism in white-tailed deer, and – in fawns – mortality. Remarkably, researchers uncovered imidacloprid levels in free-ranging deer a full 3.5 times higher, on average, than the levels in the animals treated in their experiment. These new findings add to the mounting evidence of the hazards posed by current patterns of neonicotinoid use, while evidence of benefits remains sparse.

The study, published in Nature Scientific Reports, includes two years of data on the physiological and behavioral outcomes of imidacloprid contamination in 80 white-tailed deer housed in a South Dakota State University captive research facility. Notably, researchers were unable to entirely control imidacloprid levels in untreated deer, most likely due to background contamination from corn- and soy-based feed, and surrounding vegetation infiltrated by runoff from nearby agricultural fields. This background contamination altered, but did not compromise, the analysis. Researchers found that imidacloprid levels detected in the spleens of treated and control animals were significantly predictive of reduced thyroid hormone levels, shorter jawbones, lower activity levels, and higher fawn mortality.

Lead authors Elise Berheim, Jonathan Jenks, PhD, and Jonathan Lundgren, PhD, were motivated to pursue their study by the appearance of new morphological and developmental abnormalities in Northern Great Plains white-tailed deer populations over the last decade. The researchers suspected that pesticides might be to blame for some of these defects, documented at high frequencies in west-central Montana and South Dakota. Indeed, their newest findings confirm that neonicotinoids likely play a role in the documented declining health of white-tailed deer. But, adds, Dr. Lundgren, “Neonicotinoids are just one of the chemistries that these deer are being exposed to regularly in the environment, and so understanding where they fit within that range of contacts, whether there are synergisms with other pesticides, those are the important next questions.”

While open questions remain, this latest study adds yet another file in the case against the expanding and under-regulated use of systemic insecticide treated seeds, now the dominant form of neonicotinoid delivery affecting tens of millions of hectares of treated U.S. land per year. There is substantial evidence that neonicotinoids, as they are currently used, cause harm to wildlife, including mammals, as well as birds, insect pollinators and other beneficial insects, and aquatic invertebrates.

Neonicotinoids are most infamous for their well-documented role in driving mass pollinator declines. However, pollinators are far from the only victims of ubiquitous neonicotinoid contamination. In a recent avian risk assessment, EPA scientists found that neonicotinoids present in treated seeds exceeds the agency’s level of concern for certain birds by as much as 200-fold. A 2017 study by researchers at the University of Saskatchewan confirmed that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids – the equivalent of just four treated canola seeds, for example – are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction and become emaciated.

Because neonicotinoids persist in soil and easily become airborne, the chemicals spread far beyond target crops and can contaminate nearby plants, soil, and water, thus posing far-reaching threats to wildlife. An EPA aquatic risk assessment for imidacloprid, released in 2017, found that imidacloprid threatens the health of U.S. waterways with significant risks to aquatic insects and cascading effects on aquatic food webs. Neonicotinoids contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the U.S. and Puerto Rico, according to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that expands on a previous study finding the chemicals in Midwest waterways.

In keeping with these broad contamination trends, authors of the present study uncovered a disturbing degree of imidacloprid in the organs of free-ranging deer. Of the 367 deer sampled from North Dakota, 77.5% had spleen levels of imidacloprid greater than 0.33 ng/g – the mean level detected in the spleens of fawns that died in the experiment. Referring to this high degree of environmental contamination, Dr. Lundgren states, “I was surprised, absolutely, by those results… I felt like our doses were actually pretty high in the experiment – they were ecologically relevant, but they were pretty high – so to find 3.5 times the quantity of imidacloprid in wild-caught deer, that was really surprising.”

Not only were these levels shockingly high, they also increased with time, notes Dr. Jenks. The average concentration of imidacloprid in free-ranging deer increased by an average of 0.11 ng/g per year from 2009 to 2017. During that same period, nationwide use of neonicotinoids in corn, soy, and other major crops increased by more than 2.6-fold. Referencing the increasing trend of contamination, Dr. Jenks notes, “I think that’s a really interesting finding that relates to the amount of this chemical that’s been utilized in agriculture over time here.”

Treated seeds have dramatically altered the landscape of pesticide use and pesticide contamination in the U.S., yet their use goes largely undocumented and unregulated due to an EPA regulatory loophole. The introduction and spread of seed-delivered pesticides to major field crops beginning around 2003 caused a massive increase in total neonicotinoid delivery nationwide; a 2015 review of USGS survey data found that 79 to 100% of maize acres and 34 to 44% of soybeans preemptively seed-treated with neonicotinoids by 2011. As of 2014, total neonicotinoid use in the US was estimated at 3.47 million kg, representing a 46-fold increase over pre-2003 annual application rates.

Alarmingly, over that same period of rapid expansion, multiple studies have demonstrated that neonicotinoid seed treatment does little to mitigate target pests. A significant body of research, including EPA studies, have found that neonicotinoid seed treatments provide little to no benefit to farmers. An assessment published in 2018 by an international team of scientists found that an alternative insurance model could easily replace the need for farmers to purchase expensive neonicotinoid-coated seeds.

“There’s a balancing act. Risk is balanced against benefits,” Dr. Lundgren explains, referring to public perception of EPA’s pesticide registration process. Yet, he observes, “In the case of neonicotinoids, there really aren’t a lot of agricultural benefits that are realized from the use of neonics. The cost seems high but the data don’t support a lot of benefits from them. It really does beg the question of what’s acceptable and what’s not.”

Beyond Pesticides holds the position that the widespread and unchecked expansion of neonicotinoid use is unacceptable. The well-documented risks of neonicotinoid seed treatment far outweigh the unsubstantiated, and in large part disproven, claimed benefits. The time is now to demand firmer regulation of all forms of neonicotinoids, including the vast majority delivered through currently unregulated treated seeds. Act now, and tell your Congressional delegation that EPA must fully regulated treated seeds to protect the environment and public health.

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

Sources: Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Physiology and Reproductive Characteristics of Captive Female and Fawn White-tailed Deer (Nature Scientific Reports), Beyond Pesticides Interview

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2019) Corporate food giant General Mills has thrown some weight behind regenerative agriculture, committing to converting one million acres of farmland to regenerative practices by 2030. Some – but not all – of the initiative involves organic land management.

Regenerative agriculture is a term with a range of interpretations, but the key element is improving soil health through carbon sequestration. Robert Rodale, one of the early proponents of organic agriculture and a major publisher, coined the name to characterize a process that moves beyond sustainable maintenance and into improvement of resources. This methodology is gaining traction in the farming world because it is economically beneficial to farmers and promotes environmental remediation. A 2018 study shows that ecologically-based farming systems have fewer pests and generate higher profits than their conventional counterparts.

“Practitioners who have done this the longest point to the fact that in extreme years, their farms will do better than those who do not,” says Jerry Lynch, General Mills’ chief sustainability officer, “After some transition time, depending on their location and cropping system, farmers are saving a lot of money because they’re using fewer inputs.”

In their press release, General Mills lays out three foci within their definition of regenerative agriculture:

1. Healthy Soil: Carbon rich, biologically active soil plays an essential role in cleaning and storing water, supporting biodiversity and regulating the climate.
2. Above-Ground Biodiversity: Diversity in crop varieties, grazing animals, wildlife and pollinators supports resilient ecosystems that can better withstand disease, pests and climate fluctuations.
3. Farmer Economic Resilience: Regenerative agriculture practices can strengthen whole farm profitability and resilience over time.

General Mills is making significant investments, including grand-scale land conversions and working with training partners. They have donated $650,000 to nonprofit organization Kiss the Ground for training and coaching. Part of their million-acre effort includes converting 34,000 acres in South Dakota from conventional farm land to organic.

Agriculture contributes, by some estimates, up to 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, soil is an enormous potential area for carbon storage (a “sink”) and in fact benefits from the additional carbon structure. Healthy, carbon-rich soil stores water and erodes less, making fields more tolerant to disruptive weather such as heavy rain or drought.

There is crossover with regenerative and other agricultural movements, such as organic or no-till. In the face of “erosion” of the organic label by hydroponics and big agriculture, the Real Organic Project – a coalition of farmers and advocates – has been trying to bolster the organic label by reiterating the importance of soil in organic. “Organic Farming was defined back in its infancy as a farming method that is centered on maintaining fertile and biologically healthy soil,” states the organization’s website.

Last year, the Rodale Institute introduced a label for regenerative agriculture food using the USDA certified organic as a baseline requirement. As an add-on to the organic label, Regenerative Organic Certification (ROC) involves three pillars of soil health, animal welfare, and social fairness. Their definition of soil health includes no synthetic inputs (i.e. pesticides or fertilizers).

In another realm of regenerative agriculture, some no-till advocates, while focused on improving soil health and reducing inputs, find it difficult to move away from synthetics entirely. A Civil Eats article quotes no-till advocate and Arkansas farmer Adam Chappel, “You can’t quit [synthetic fertilizer and herbicides] cold-turkey,” but he notes that after a few years in the practice, “I don’t need seed treatments for my cotton anymore. I’ve taken the insecticide off my soybeans. I’m working toward getting rid of fungicide … I’m hoping that eventually my soil will be healthy enough that I can get rid of all of it all together.” Many programs that are dependent even on reduced pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use maintain a dependency on those toxic inputs because the soil biology is not fully supported by practices and amendments that grow the biomass and ultimately nutrient cycling.

The heavy involvement of General Mills might raise some eyebrows in a field generally dominated by small, even anti-establishment farmers and advocates. Addressing cynicism of investment by their corporate entity in organic, Carla Vernon, president of General Mills’ natural and organic business stated, “We feared the skepticism of General Mills would overshadow the good work of our natural and organic brands, but Big Food must be at the table if we are going to make a difference at scale.” [Of note, Beyond Pesticides recently won a legal settlement against General Mills regarding their misleading “100% Natural Oats” label on Nature Valley Granola Bars.]

General Mills has a bottom line that will be impacted indiscriminately by climate change and pollinator decline. Lynch states, “The trend is increased demand and coupled with a dwindling natural resource supply, and the pressure facing farming communities, we are concerned with that.”

Whatever the motive, industry involvement is significant in a growing movement. Robert Rodale remarked in a 1989 interview, “I don’t think the average person aspires to live in a sustained environment, they want to live in something that’s expanding and getting better, so I think the idea of regeneration is more appealing.” Beyond Pesticides looks forward to an expanding future of organic and regenerative agriculture.

Check out Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience to share with those who don’t think beyond the dinner plate, but may be interested to know the effect of the chemicals used where food is grown on the environmental, people, and wildife.

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

Sources: Successful Farming, General Mills

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2019) In a second verdict against Bayer/Monsanto yesterday, a jury found unanimously that a California man’s non Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) was substantially caused by the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup). The case being heard in federal court in San Francisco now moves to the damages phase. Last August in San Francisco Superior Court, a California groundskeeper was awarded $39 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages in a case that linked his NHL to Monsanto’s glyphosate/Roundup. In October, the judge in the case upheld the verdict, but reduced the award to $78 million.

According to the Associated Press, the trial judge, U.S. Judge Vince Chhabira “is overseeing hundreds of Roundup lawsuits and has deemed [this case] and two others ‘bellwether trials.“ The case was brought by Edwin Hardeman of Santa Rosa, CA. He said he had been using Roundup since the 1980’s. During the trial, according to The Guardian, Judge Chhabria, “approved Monsanto’s request to prohibit Hardeman’s attorneys from raising allegations about the corporation’s conduct, saying issues about its influence on science and government were a ‘significant … distraction.’” This set up a limitation that required the plaintiff’s attorneys to focus solely on studies linking the chemical to cancer risks.

The plaintiff’s attorney, Aimee Wagstaff, told the Guardian: “The jury will hear about the science, but they won’t get to hear about how Monsanto influenced it,”  “The jury won’t have a complete understanding of the science. If we win without the jury knowing the complete science, that’s a real problem for Monsanto.”

The jury verdict in August was reported by Beyond Pesticides as a “stunning victory.” Beyond Pesticides reported at the time a statement of Beyond Pesticides’ executive director: “While we know that the jury verdict cannot restore Mr. Johnson’s health, we believe that the verdict is a clarion call to manufacturers that ignore the devastating impact that their products can have on unsuspecting workers, consumers, and families. We look forward to the day in the not-too-distant future when we recognize as a society that products like glyphosate (Roundup) are not necessary, and effective and affordable land and building management can be achieved without toxic chemicals. The case should also signal to all levels of government – local, state, and federal – that we have a social, public health, and environmental responsibility to remove toxic pesticides from use with a high degree of urgency.”

Ms. Wagstaff, working with co-counsel, Andrus Wagstaff, PC and Jennifer Moore of Moore Law Group, PLLC, said,

“Mr. Hardeman is pleased that the jury unanimously held that Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Now we can focus on the evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of Roundup. Instead, it is clear from Monsanto’s actions that it does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue. We look forward to presenting this evidence to the jury and holding Monsanto accountable for its bad conduct.”

Despite the prevalent myth that this widely-used herbicide is harmless, glyphosate (N-phosphono-methyl glycine) is associated with a wide range of illnesses, including NHL, genetic damage, liver and kidney damage, endocrine disruption, as well as environmental damage, including water contamination and harm to amphibians. Researchers have also determined that the “inert” ingredients in glyphosate products, especially polyethoxylated tallow amine or POEA —a surfactant commonly used in glyphosate and other herbicidal products—are even more toxic than glyphosate itself. Monsanto, manufacturer of glyphosate, formulates many products such as Roundup™ and Rodeo™ and markets formulations exclusively used on genetically engineered (GE) crops. Glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, due in large part to the increased cultivation of GE crops that are tolerant of the herbicide.

Since EPA’s classification of glyphosate as a Group E carcinogen—or “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans,” the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015 classified glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen, which means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. As of July 7, 2017, glyphosate is listed as a cancer-causing chemical under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). This requires cancer warning labels be placed on end-use glyphosate products in California.

Newer scientific studies have also looked in greater depth at glyphosate’s mode of action and the implications for human and ecological health. Glyphosate works by disrupting a crucial pathway for manufacturing aromatic amino acids in plants—but not animals—and, therefore, many have assumed that it does not harm humans. However, many bacteria do use the shikimate pathway, and 90 percent of the cells in a human body are bacteria. The destruction of beneficial microbiota in the human gut (and elsewhere in and on the human body) is, therefore, a cause for concern—and a major contributor to disease. In addition, the destruction of soil microbiota leads to unhealthy agricultural systems with an increasing dependence on agricultural chemicals. Assessing the mode of action of glyphosate, scientists have found that it starves and sickens the very crop plants that it is supposed to protect. It is dangerous to base the review of chemicals on the assumption that microbiota is irrelevant to assessing dangers.

Beyond Pesticides encourages communities to work to eliminate local use of glyphosate herbicides, and to advance the transition to organic land management. For resources on taking such actions, see our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup, our report, “Glyphosate/Roundup Exposed,” and our Lawns and Landscapes page.

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

Source: The Guardian, Associated Press, U.S. Right to Know

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 2019) Research is beginning to explain how systemic neonicotinoid insecticides affect often overlooked species of ground nesting bees. While much of the current scientific literature has focused on the impacts of pesticides to bumblebees and honey bees, a study, Chronic contact with realistic soil concentrations of imidacloprid affects the mass, immature development speed, and adult longevity of solitary bees, recently published in Scientific Reports, confirms that wild, soil-dwelling bees are at similar risk. As policy makers consider ways to protect pollinators, this research finds that uncontaminated soil is an important aspect of ensuring the health of wild, native bees.

“This is an important piece of work because it’s one of the first studies to look at realistic concentrations of pesticides that you would find in the soil as a route of exposure for bees,” said Nick Anderson, co-author of the study. “It’s a very under-explored route, especially for some of the more solitary species that nest in the ground.”

In order to study the impact of neonicotinoids on ground nesting bees, researchers used orchard mason bees and leafcutter bees as proxies, as they are easier to gather and rear in the lab, and have a similar ecology to ground nesting species. Roughly 300 bees of each species were taken into the lab as larva, and exposed every 48 hours to either 7.5, 15, or 100 ppb of the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. A control with no exposure was also established as a baseline. The authors explain that these amounts represent realistic exposure patterns that wild bees are likely to encounter in soil.

Researchers monitored the bees every day until they reached adulthood, recording longevity, development speed, and mass. Results show that male and female bees have different reactions to exposure. Female mason bees subject to the highest concentrations of imidacloprid live much shorter lives than those unexposed, while the authors had difficulty determining effects on male bees due to an equipment malfunction. Male leafcutter bees actually lived longer than control bees, but developed much faster and to a smaller size than bees not exposed to a pesticide. Female leafcutter development appeared to depend on the concentration of exposure, with the 15ppb group developing slower than other treatment levels and the 100ppb group developing two days faster than control bees.

The changes are likely a result of a hormetic response by the pollinators. This is a phenomena that results from exposure to pesticides; changes in development occur in order to compensate for energy the bee diverts into physical and biological protections from pesticide exposure. This has important implications for the long term health of ground-nesting bees. Any change in development that distracts or alters normal functioning can affect fitness in the field.

Previous research on the environmental fate of neonicotinoids shows that they have the potential to remain in soil from 200 days to as long as 19 years. This means that the type of chronic exposure tested in the current study could occur years or even a decade after an initial pesticide application. Although scientific literature on wild pollinators is limited, past research on mason bees revealed 50% reduced total offspring and a significantly male-biased offspring sex ratio.

The pollinator crisis is broader than honey and bumble bees, and extends not only to native, ground nesting bees but also butterflies and birds. The New York Times has identified the precipitous decline in insect populations over the past several decades as an insect apocalypse.

While bombastic “apocalyptic” language may be criticized for stoking panic and fear, even these warnings have been generally ignored by many policy makers, begging the question of what it will actually take in order to get action on this critical issue. We need to protect not only honey bees, but the wide diversity of native pollinators in order to maintain agricultural production, floral resources, and other ecosystem services that enable our environment, and ultimately human civilization to thrive.

U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Jim McGovern, and the 33 current cosponsors of the Saving America’s Pollinators Act are listening to these warnings, and have introduced legislation that would substantive address the threats pesticides pose to pollinators. But in order for change to happen, we need a significant outpouring of public support in favor of this proposal. Take action today by urging your member of Congress to cosponsor SAPA. And if you’re also interested in working on this issue in your state or local community, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450.

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

Source: University of Illinois Press Release, Scientific Reports (peer reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, March 17, 2019) Forget about single-pesticide issues: this affects every single one of them. EPA is allowing massive data gaps to persist for each and every pesticide product it registers by conducting the bulk of its health and environmental risk assessments using active ingredients alone. With its current practices, EPA is failing its federal mandate to protect public health and the environment and misleading the public about what is “safe.”

Tell your Congressional delegation that EPA must assess the real risks of pesticide use, not rely on false representations of risk based on tests of isolated ingredients.

When pesticides are sprayed on our crops, lawns, and roadsides, and enter into our waterways, groundwater and drinking water, we are exposed to whole formulations, whole tank mixtures, and whole pesticide combinations, not just active ingredients (those that the manufacturer claims are the only ingredients that attack the target pest). It is the whole formulation that makes the poison, and that whole formulation must be regulated.

Active ingredients are far from the whole story of pesticide poisoning. Despite their name, “inert” ingredients are very often not chemically, biologically, nor toxicologically inert or innocuous. According to a peer-reviewed study, as of 2006, more than 500 ingredients that were listed as “inert” in some products serve as the active ingredient in other products. Many “inert” ingredients are known to state, federal, and international agencies to be hazardous to human health. One of the most hazardous ingredients in common formulations of the popular herbicide Roundup is a surfactant, which is classified as an “inert,” and therefore not listed on the label. A 2013 study found that some Roundup adjuvants are 9,661 times more toxic to human cells than the active ingredient glyphosate. The real threats of herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides are masked when EPA only tests active ingredients.

Synergy between ingredients adds yet another layer to the stack of untested threats. Ingredients added to formulations are specifically selected for their ability to make the active ingredient more potent, yet these effects are ignored in the vast majority of EPA-required testing. A 2016 Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) Investigative report found that 69% of recently approved pesticide patent applications claimed or demonstrated synergy between ingredients in the product.

Based on EPA’s current policies, the agency does not require any testing on the health effects of pesticide products, as commonly applied, in the areas of chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, or subchronic oral toxicity, inhalation toxicity, and neurotoxicity. Nor does it require any testing on the effect of whole pesticide products on avian oral toxicity, avian dietary toxicity, avian reproduction, freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle, freshwater fish early-life stage, or honey bee acute contact toxicity.

To put it another way: EPA has no idea whether the pesticide products it registers and claims pose an “acceptable risk” could cause cancer, chronic disease, developmental delays, or infertility. EPA has no idea whether the pesticide products it registers could harm or kill birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates, or honey bees. These data gaps are alarming and unacceptable, and a misinterpretation of the law.

Tell your Congressional delegation that EPA must assess the real risks of pesticide use, not rely on false representations of risk based on tests of isolated ingredients.

If you have a moment, please take a few minutes to navigate to EPA’s public comment page and tell EPA directly that it must require whole mixture testing. By clicking on ‘Comment Now!’ you can become part of the official decision-making process in this critical, far-reaching issue. See below for suggested comments (which you can cut-and-paste into the EPA docket), or personalize your own.

(Suggested Comment):

I am writing in support of the policy amendments detailed in the petition, “Seeking Revised Testing Requirements of Pesticides Prior to Registration,” Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0262-0001.

Whole pesticides must be tested across all areas of toxicity in the same form in which they are commonly applied, in order to comply with FIFRA and adequately protect the environment and public health.

Based on published policies (40 C.F.R § 158.500-660), EPA does not currently require any testing on the health effects of pesticide products, as commonly applied, in the areas of chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, or subchronic oral toxicity, inhalation toxicity, and neurotoxicity. Nor does it require any testing on the effect of whole pesticide products on avian oral toxicity, avian dietary toxicity, avian reproduction, freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle, freshwater fish early-life stage, or honey bee acute contact toxicity.

By requiring only the active ingredient for the majority of pesticide risk assessment tests, EPA is failing to adequately protect against known widespread hazards of “inert” ingredients and their synergistic effects on whole pesticide toxicity.

EPA must fulfill its federal mandate and test whole pesticide formulations and mixtures, as they are commonly applied. Anything less falls short of adequate protection under the law.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2019) Beyond Pesticides and others have worked for many years to educate stakeholders and policy makers about the dangers of pesticides, and to transform pest management by eliminating a reliance on toxic pesticides and advancing organic management practices. Considerable focus has been on glyphosate, which is used in several herbicides, most notably in Bayer’s (then Monsanto’s, until its 2018 purchase by Bayer) Roundup. The compound has had a relatively high profile in the pesticide landscape, due in part to the ubiquity of its use, and in part to the tireless work of health and environmental advocates and scientists to expose its risks. With that profile, glyphosate has been a bit of a stand-in for the dangers of pesticides broadly. As journalist Carey Gillam said at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum in 2018, “Glyphosate is the poster child for the bigger pesticide problem. . . . If it goes away tomorrow, we are [still] not okay.”

The variety of risks this compound poses is broad, and pushback and risk evidence on its use come from multiple sides. This Daily News Blog focuses on recent developments on several of those fronts, all of which advanced knowledge and momentum, and could spell more trouble for the future of this toxic herbicide.

First up: Harrell’s is a company that sells chemical pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and “adjuvants and colorants,” among other products, primarily to golf courses, and to the horticulture-nursery, turf, and landscape sectors. The company announced on March 11 that it stopped selling products containing glyphosate as of March 1, 2019 because neither its current insurance company nor others the company consulted would underwrite coverage for the company for any glyphosate-related claims. This follows the successful and landmark glyphosate case in 2018 of DeWayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company. The insurers’ decision also recognizes the additional 8,000+ glyphosate-based suits against manufacturers, sellers, and users that are in queue — many of them aimed at glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. A meta-study in February 2018 concluded that there is a “compelling link between exposures to GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] and increased risk of NHL [non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma].”

Harrell’s CEO’s statement included this: “During our annual insurance renewal last month, we were surprised to learn that our insurance company was no longer willing to provide coverage for claims related to glyphosate due to the recent high-profile lawsuit and the many thousands of lawsuits since. We sought coverage from other companies but could not buy adequate coverage for the risk we would be incurring. So we had no choice other than to notify our Harrell’s Team and customers that we would no longer offer products containing glyphosate.”

The announcement stands in contrast to what Fox Business identified shortly after the verdict in the Johnson v. Monsanto case. That article reported that, “Top U.S. retailers such as Home Depot, Target, Walmart and Amazon are sticking by Monsanto’s controversial weedkiller Roundup one week after a California jury awarded a school groundskeeper $289 million for proving the spray caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.” Indeed, insurer (and perhaps re-insurer) concern may well increase in light of the firehose of lawsuits glyphosate use has triggered.

This move on insurers’ part is a big deal. Weber Gallagher, a law firm that works on defense for many corporations and industries, anticipated the implications of the 2018 landmark California case when it commented, very shortly after the verdict, in an article on its website titled, “Big Monsanto Loss Signals Glyphosate Litigation Headache for Policyholders, Insurers and Reinsurers.” The concluding text was this: “Without a doubt, like all other mass tort litigation (asbestos, environmental, toxic tort), the issues raised by current and inevitable future glyphosate lawsuits present overwhelming exposures for policyholders, insurers and reinsurers on such key issues such as trigger of coverage, number of occurrences, allocation of loss and the insurability of punitive damages. One only has to ask regarding who is going to pay for last month’s Monsanto verdict to understand the enormity of the issue.” If this is the first in a series of dominoes to fall, it could spell disaster for Bayer’s product.

The next development of note adds to the scientific evidence of functional health impacts of glyphosate in mammals. A recent study by Fabiana Manservisi, Corina Lesseur, et al., published in Environmental Health on March 12, investigated impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides on development and endocrine systems in rats. Two groups of Sprague Dawley rats (a variety commonly used in research) were exposed to the rat equivalent of the U.S. human ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) of, respectively, glyphosate or a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup), beginning in utero and continuing through adulthood. Impacts of exposures at these “safe” levels nevertheless induced endocrine impacts (e.g., distorted hormone levels) and anomalous reproductive morphology (with a skew toward androgen-like effects in both sexes, but especially in females). Of particular note is that exposure to the glyphosate formulation (Roundup Bioflow) evinced more, and more-pronounced, effects than glyphosate itself. The study adds to the evidence that exposure to glyphosate, particularly in the matrix of other ingredients in formulations such as Roundup, is associated with endocrine disrupting and reproductive impacts.

Finally, on March 1 the City of Miami established a ban, which went into immediate effect, on the use of any glyphosate-based herbicides (including Roundup compounds) by the city and any of its contractors. This follows an earlier proscription by the city of glyphosate use in any city or contracted landscape and maintenance activities; it also follows bans by other Florida cities, including Miami Beach and Stuart, that have already stopped the use of glyphosate products.

One of Miami’s City Commissioners, Ken Russell, commented on the move: “Water quality issues are so important to the city of Miami, and we can be one of the worst polluters as a municipality. We ask for residents to make a change in their habits and that they be conscious of what they put in their gardens, but when I realized the totality of what the city uses at any given time, we had to change our habits.” Local water advocacy group Miami Waterkeeper lauded the move, saying, “Banning the use of glyphosate is a great first step to take in improving water quality. It is also beneficial to public health, as citizens of the city of Miami won’t be exposed to harmful chemicals.”

Pesticides and herbicides, including the extremely popular glyphosate-based Roundup compounds, represent health risks beyond direct and indirect terrestrial exposures; they also get into waterways. Water quality is a huge issue in much of Florida, given its extensive coastline, low-lying land mass, and extremely high water table. Much of the state’s drinking water sources, as well as its ocean waters, are under assault from a variety of threats, including: agricultural runoff of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers (the last of which contribute mightily to toxic algal blooms from excess nutrients dumped into freshwater bodies or oceans); use of pesticides and herbicides to manage turf (parks, playing fields, and — this being Florida — golf courses); and dumping of partially or poorly treated sewer effluent into the ocean, contributing to the development of so-called “dead zones” offshore — areas of low-oxygen caused by nutrient pollution from human activity. A year ago, the Florida Legislature approved a plan to allow the dumping of “treated” sewage into the Biscayne aquifer — the primary source of Miami’s drinking water. The hurdles to improved public health and environmental integrity are very often political.

Momentum in the effort to constrain use of glyphosate-based herbicides — in the wake of the landmark California decision and the many other pending suits, and the mounting scientific evidence of the dangers of glyphosate — may be gaining. Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor developments, which are easy to track via its Daily News Blog and its journal, Pesticides and You. Though the transition to a system of pest management that does not rely on toxic chemicals likely represents a slog against the entrenched and monied chemical industry, calls to restrict or eliminate glyphosate’s use are mounting nationally and globally, and recent developments may signal that glyphosate’s days are numbered. Beyond Pesticides will work tirelessly for its final elimination from use and a transition to pest management approaches that do not threaten human or environmental health.

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

Sources: https://www.turfnet.com/news.html/harrells-discontinues-sale-of-products-containing-glyphosate-r1196/ and https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0453-y#Sec16 and https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/city-of-miami-bans-use-of-herbicides-containing-glyphosate-11100953

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2019) A study, supported by the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture, finds that state pesticide preemption laws “compromise public health and economic well-being” by preventing localities from enacting pesticide use restrictions on private property that are more restrictive than their state’s regulations. In the words of the authors, “By eliminating the ability of local governments to enact ordinances to safeguard inhabitants from health risks posed by pesticides, state preemption laws denigrate public health protections.”

The study, Anti-community state pesticide preemption laws prevent local governments from protecting people from harm, published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, reviews scientific and historical evidence of the failure of state and federal pesticide laws to protect localities from pesticide poisoning, and highlights the inability of localities to compensate for that failure under present laws. Communities seeking to protect their residents would typically issue community-wide restrictions to ensure protection of shared community resources, including air, land, and waterways, from pesticide drift, runoff, and other nontarget effects —as is the case with other community decisions on recycling, smoking, and zoning. The study’s authors document how industry influence led to the adoption of state laws that undermine the ability of localities to enact protective pesticide standards they determine are necessary to protect public health and the environment. In the absence of this broad public and environmental health authority, localities focus on the management of public property, including parks, playing fields, schools, and rights-of way.

Drawing on Beyond Pesticides’ research and long-standing involvement in this issue, as well as other independent studies, the authors trace the history of state preemption. In 1991, the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Public Intervenor vs. Mortier affirmed the right of  local governments to restrict pesticides on private and public property under federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), with federal and state law serving as a floor for minimum protective standards. However, over several years beginning in 1993, groups representing industry successfully lobbied state legislatures in 43 states to override local authority. In the words of the study authors, “For the past 50 years, agricultural interest groups have supported anti-community preemption laws covering a variety of topics because they interfered with business arrangements and tended to increase costs.”

Currently, twenty-nine states have explicit preemption, and only six states are free of state preemption law. Most of the state laws defining preemption use nearly identical preemption language that explicitly preempts local authority. Most states’ preemption clauses read similar to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Model State Pesticide Preemption Act, which states,

“No city, town, county, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt or continue in effect any ordinance, rule, regulation or statute regarding pesticide sale or use, including without limitation: registration, notification of use, advertising and marketing, distribution, applicator training and certification, storage, transportation, disposal, disclosure of confidential information, or product composition.”

The authors cite previous work by their own as well as other research groups, finding that the most frequent justification for these state preemption laws is the desire for “economies of scale,” centralizing control and thereby minimizing “costly administrative redundancy.” Based on evidence of industry influence over state policies, the researchers hold the position that these justifications are a guise for more perverse economic motivations.

Another common justification for state preemption laws, put forward for example by ALEC, is that state control prevents localities from electing less restrictive or less protective policies. Authors note that this position is false, as localities would still have to follow federal law, thus precluding the establishment of less protective local laws.

The study delivers the clear message that when it comes to protections, more expansive local authority is actually needed. In their discussion, the researchers highlight several specific areas of pesticide regulation that demonstrate a clear need for local restrictions to increase protections. Citing the 2017 EPA decision to forgo revoking chlorpyrifos tolerances, for example, authors suggest that localities should be able to enact protections to prevent local exposure to one of the most neurologically toxic pesticides on the market.

Researchers highlight the need for protective policies that account for geographic and demographic conditions unique to a given locality. Referencing the endocrine disrupting effects of atrazine-contaminated drinking water on pregnant women and fetuses, for example, the authors argue that communities with young families should have the authority “to safeguard pregnant mothers from the risks of preterm delivery” by setting their own restrictions. Similarly, chlorpyrifos bans are particularly important for localities dominated by agricultural land, where use is still prevalent. Chlorpyrifos was banned from residential use in 2000, but because of ongoing farm use of this potent brain-damaging chemical, communities in rural, agricultural areas are still heavily exposed.

As the discussion makes clear, the impact of repealing state preemption laws, or preventing their further spread, would be far-reaching. Localities could enforce stronger protections for pollinators by enforcing stricter restrictions of neonicotinoids, for example. Local jurisdictions could ban the use of glyphosate based on extensive evidence for its link to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Rural districts where farmers are suffering losses due to herbicide drift could enact stricter limits on the use of herbicides such as dicamba.

Indeed, in those few states that do not restrict locality authority over pesticide use, there are classic examples of a democratic decision making process yielding increased public health and environmental protections. A number of localities have restricted pesticide use on public and private property. Montgomery County recently banned the use of glyphosate-based herbicides in parks, in advance of a complete ban throughout the community. A 2015 Montgomery County ban limits allowable turf management pesticides (on public or private property within the county’s jurisdiction) to those permitted for use in organic production, or identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “minimum risk pesticides” under FIFRA.  Takoma Park, a city within Montgomery County, passed a similar ordinance in 2013, as did Ogunquit, Maine in 2014. South Portland, Maine followed Ogunquit by roughly a year, as did Portland, Maine (2018) in passing an ordinance quite like Montgomery County’s 2015 “public and private” ban. And where local authority is limited, communities are taking action to restrict pesticide use on public land. In September 2018, Miami Beach instituted a ban, similar to bans in dozens to communities nationwide, on any use of glyphosate-based herbicides by city employees and contractors in landscaping and maintenance work on all city-owned properties.

Working with local elected officials nationwide, and in collaboration with other organizations, Beyond Pesticide successfully pushed to remove a provision in the 2018 Farm Bill that would have amended FIFRA to preempt local jurisdictions from restricting pesticides. This protects the status-quo, as many states consider repealing preemption law in their states. In 2017 in the state legislature of Maine, a state that affirms local authority to restrict pesticides community-wide, the chemical industry unsuccessfully pushed to institute preemption and take away local authority that numerous jurisdictions have exercised.

Beyond Pesticides looks toward a future when federal, state, and local governments are all accountable to the people they serve; when pesticide use across the board is recognized as unacceptably hazardous; when agrochemicals are rendered unnecessary due to the regeneration of healthy soils and resurgence of beneficial insect and microbial communities brought about by the widespread adoption of organic practices; when health is a right and not a choice for some. As a step toward that endpoint, localities must be able to build the models we need to follow nationally and globally to ensure our future on this planet.

Join Beyond Pesticides in advocating for local authority to enact stronger protections against pesticide use. Inform yourself of your own state’s preemption status by consulting our State Preemption Law page, and stay abreast of the latest updates by following the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog.

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

Source: Anti-community state pesticide preemption laws prevent local governments from protecting people from harm. Centner and Heric, 2019.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2019) A study on the impact of two neonicotinoid pesticides shows differential gene expression in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) after exposure. Considering the current worldwide plight of insects, the authors of point to the cutting edge research as both a reason and a methodology to more carefully examine the effects of pesticides.

“Caste- and pesticide-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticide exposure on gene expression in bumblebees” was published in the journal Molecular Ecology in early March. Researchers fed variable colonies with clothianidin or imidacloprid-laced sucrose. They analyzed gene expression in the heads of worker bumblebees and colony queens using RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), inspired by biomedical techniques. This approach allowed for new insight on what genes and pathways are affected by neonicotinoid exposure.

Study author Yannick Wurm, PhD, stated in a press release, “Our work demonstrates that the type of high-resolution molecular approach that has changed the way human diseases are researched and diagnosed, can also be applied to beneficial pollinators. This approach provides an unprecedented view of how bees are being affected by pesticides and works at large scale. It can fundamentally improve how we evaluate the toxicity of chemicals we put into nature.”

Clothianidin had a stronger impact on bumblebee colonies, changing the expression of 55 genes in worker bees and 17 genes in queens. The affected genes are involved in important biological processes such as mitochondrial function. Researchers noted with interest that there was almost no overlap between the genes that were impacted in queens versus workers. Comparatively, imidacloprid altered expression of only one gene in workers. The divergent effects of these two similar pesticides indicates distinct genetic mechanisms of toxicity.

Previous studies of neonicotinoids have found sublethal effects on bee learning and memory, cognition and problem solving, motor function, foraging performance, navigation abilities, and immune system – but have not delved deeply into the genetic process by which these deleterious effects occur.

“While newer pesticide evaluation aims to consider the impact on behaviour, our work demonstrates a highly sensitive approach that can dramatically improve how we evaluate the effects of pesticides,” says Dr. Wurm.

This study focuses on one type of bumblebee and finds diverse impacts, even within a colony. The novel finding highlights how little is known about the effects of pesticides on various insects. Lead author Joe Colgan, PhD, stated, “We examined the effects of two pesticides on one species of bumblebee. But hundreds of pesticides are authorised, and their effects are likely to substantially differ across the 200,000 pollinating insect species which also include other bees, wasps, flies, moths, and butterflies.”

The European Union banned the use of neonicotinoids in 2018, but these pesticides are still widely used in the U.S. and elsewhere. Beyond Pesticides holds the position that we must commit to complete transformation of our agricultural system if we hope to stave off the dire fate of total, devastating insect decline.

Beyond Pesticides is a resource for activists pushing to end pesticide use and adopt least-toxic, organic practices. Join the movement to end destructive pesticide use by engaging at the local, state and federal levels to transform our agricultural system. Our tools for change serves as a resource to help individuals organize their communities.

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

Sources: Queen Mary University of London, EcoWatch

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2019) Fifty years after the end of the Vietnam War, the Agent Orange byproduct dioxin continues to contaminate Vietnam’s soils and wildlife, and subsequently affect human health. In their review, scientists at Iowa State and the University of Illinois focus on the locations where hot spots and contaminated sediments have persisted after 130,000 fifty-five gallons drums of toxic herbicides were sprayed over Vietnam’s farm fields and jungle canopies during the war.

“Existing Agent Orange and dioxin research is primarily medical in nature, focusing on the details of human exposure primarily through skin contact and long-term health effects on U.S. soldiers,” says Ken Olson, PhD, co-author on the article. “In this paper, we examine the short and long-term environmental effects on the Vietnamese natural resource base and how persistence of dioxin continues to affect soils, water, sediment, fish, aquatic species, the food supply, and Vietnamese health.”

While public attention has generally focused on the “rainbow herbicides,” such as Agent Orange, used during the Vietnam war, it is the dioxin TCDD (2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzodioxin), a byproduct of Agent Orange’s manufacturing process, that has caused the most lasting damage within the country. While the breakdown period for Agent Orange herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5,-T can be measured in months, TCDD can persist for decades and likely even centuries in water sediments and jungle soils. And the chemical, one of the most toxic man-made substances on earth, can cause significant health impacts and birth defects at levels as low as parts per trillion.

Herbicide applications occurred throughout Vietnam’s jungle canopy, as part of U.S. efforts to eliminate cover for Viet Cong soldiers. But according to researchers, over 40% of herbicides used during the war were sprayed on farm fields in attempts to destroy the food of opposing troops. These farms were owned primarily by civilians, resulting in famine, malnourishment and other lasting damage to agricultural regions of the country.

“The pathway begins with the U.S. military spraying in the 1960s, absorption by tree and shrub leaves, leaf drop to the soil surface (along with some direct contact of the spray with the soil), then attachment of the dioxin TCDD to soil organic matter and clay particles of the soil,” author Wright Morton, PhD, indicates.

Rains and other factors then move this contaminated soil off-site, into marshes, rivers, lakes, streams, and other wetland areas. TCDD dioxin is then taken up by aquatic benthic organisms like shrimp and fish. Accumulating in fatty tissue, it moves up the food chain and eventually becomes a hazard for public health. Although there are widespread fishing bans in Vietnam, fish represent a significant source of food and protein for many in the country, and despite the risks, the bans are difficult to enforce.

Researchers also identified specific hot spots where TCDD dioxin contamination presents particularly pronounced risks. “The worst dioxin-contaminated site in Vietnam is Bien Hoa airbase, which is 30 miles north of Ho Chi Minh City,” Dr.Olson says. “After President Nixon ordered the U.S. military to stop spraying Agent Orange in 1970, this is the site where all the Agent Orange barrels remaining in Vietnam were collected. The barrels were processed and shipped to Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean, where they were incinerated at sea in 1977.”

Researchers indicate that incineration remains the only truly effective measure to eliminate dioxin contamination from soils. The process is costly, requiring significant resources, labor, and construction equipment, but is the prevailing method used in environmental clean-up. Many superfund sites in the U.S. are addressed through this method, for example. According to the study, there are ten U.S. air force bases that are in need of this level of remediation.

As this study shows, in many ways the Vietnam War is still being fought. Not only are the Vietnamese people still being impacted by horrific birth defects and other health effects caused by dioxin exposure, U.S. service members that applied Agent Orange or even simply used aircraft that once stored drums of the chemicals are still fighting for compensation.

The Vietnamese government has recently gone after Monsanto (now Bayer’s Monsanto), demanding that the company pay damages to victims of TCDD dioxin contamination. As the study shows, there are significant costs that continue to be borne by the people that both Bayer’s Monsanto and the U.S. government have a responsibility to address.

For more information about the legacy of Agent Orange, see previous Daily News stories on the issue, or view Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database. Help veterans in your community by supporting veteran owned businesses and nonprofit organizations. Veterans looking to go into the organic industry after their service can explore Rodale Institute’s Veteran farmer training program.

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

Source: University of Illinois Press Release, Scientific Research (peer-reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, March 11, 2019)  We must stop the expanded commercialization of genetically engineered pesticides. The failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to fully evaluate environmental impacts of gene-manipulating pesticides raises serious concerns in light of the agency’s ongoing failure to predict ecological effects of pesticides, such as the dramatic decline of pollinators.

With the release of a 2019 peer-reviewed scientific article, Environmental Fate of RNA Interference Pesticides: Adsorption and Degradation of Double-Stranded RNA Molecules in Agricultural Soils, on the potential impact on soil and non-target microorganisms in soil, the study’s co-author, Kimberly Parker, PhD, remarked, “The ecological risk assessment of these emerging pesticides necessitates an understanding of the fate of dsRNA [double stranded RNA] molecules in receiving environments, among which agricultural soils are most important.”

This technology, given that it is systemic to the plant and leaves traces in the soil, can cause widespread indiscriminate poisoning—as has been seen with bees, butterflies, birds, and the larger catastrophic decline of insect populations.

Tell your members of Congress that the ecological effects of RNAi gene-manipulating pesticides raise serious questions—they have not been fully studied by EPA and, until they are, the agency should issue a moratorium on their release.

Previously, technical hurdles in measuring dsRNA had stymied scientists’ ability to quantify the genetic material and its degradation products in soil, but these investigators are now able to “tag” the molecule so it can be followed through a series of simulated soil systems representative of those in the “real” world. The work of these researchers marks the beginning of understanding the ecological risks of these emerging dsRNA pesticides.

The dsRNA pesticides work by impeding the expression of essential proteins in target pest insects via a cellular mechanism called RNA interference (RNAi). In RNAi, the messenger RNA of the target organism (pest) is adversely affected and it is left either stunted or dead.

In the biochemical genetic engineering (GE) sector, “gene silencing” technology is engineered into plants so that they can, functionally, produce their own pesticides. EPA quietly registered Monsanto’s (now Dow’s) first product using this genetic engineering technology in the summer of 2017 and it is expected to be on the market in 2019 or 2020.

For decades, the silver bullet strategy to controlling the corn rootworm has eluded companies advancing approaches that do not take into account crop and soil management systems known to prevent insect problems, such as those utilized by organic farmers. Previous attempts that incorporate Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that produces a toxin that kills some pests and non-pests) have been met with insect resistance over time. With the gene-manipulating pesticide, when the rootworm ingests the dsRNA in the corn plant’s tissue—grown from GE corn seeds called SmartStax Pro—a gene in the insect that is essential for rootworm survival gets turned off.

Too many mistakes have been made with the proliferation of pesticides and herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered crops, resulting in harm to consumers, farmers, and other organisms. With this new study, it is clear that we know less than we should to allow the marketing of a new pesticidal plant. Given that we have the tools to grow food productively and profitably without it, there is no need for EPA to move ahead without complete understanding of serious potential hazards.

Tell your members of Congress that the ecological effects of RNAi gene-manipulating pesticides raise serious questions—they have not been fully studied by EPA and, until they are, the agency should issue a moratorium on their release.

——

Dear U.S. Representative
Dear U.S. Senators

I respectfully request that you write to Administrator Andrew Wheeler of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requesting that he issue a moratorium on the expanded commercialization of genetically engineered RNAi pesticides that manipulate genes.The failure of EPA to fully evaluate the environmental impacts of gene-manipulating pesticides raises serious concerns in light of the agency’s past failure to predict ecological effects of pesticides, such as the dramatic decline of pollinators. With the release of a 2019 peer-reviewed scientific article, Environmental Fate of RNA Interference Pesticides: Adsorption and Degradation of Double-Stranded RNA Molecules in Agricultural Soils, on the potential impact of RNAi pesticides on soil and non-target microorganisms in soil, the study’s co-author, Kimberly Parker, PhD, remarked, “The ecological risk assessment of these emerging pesticides necessitates an understanding of the fate of dsRNA [double stranded RNA] molecules in receiving environments, among which agricultural soils are most important.”

This technology is systemic to the plant and leaves traces in the soil and can cause widespread indiscriminate poisoning—as has been seen with bees, butterflies, birds, and the larger catastrophic decline of insect populations.

In the biochemical genetic engineering (GE) sector, “gene silencing” technology is engineered into plants so that they can, functionally, produce their own pesticides. EPA) quietly registered Monsanto’s (now Dow’s) first product using this genetic engineering technology in the summer of 2017 and is expected to be on the market in 2019 or 2020.

For decades, the silver bullet strategy to controlling the corn rootworm has eluded companies advancing approaches that do not take into account crop and soil management systems known to prevent insect problems, such as those utilized by organic farmers. Previous attempts that incorporate Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that produces a toxin that kills some pests and non-pests) have been met with insect resistance over time. With the gene-manipulating pesticide, when the rootworm ingests the dsRNA in the corn plant’s tissue—grown from GE corn seeds called SmartStax Pro—a gene in the insect that is essential for rootworm survival gets turned off.

Too many mistakes have been made with the proliferation of pesticides and herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered crops that have harmed consumers, farmers, and other organisms. With this new study, it is clear that we know less than we should to allow the marketing of a new pesticidal plant. Given that we have the tools to grow food productively and profitably without it, there is no need for EPA to move ahead without complete understanding of serious potential hazards..

Please ask the EPA Administrator to stop the marketing of RNAi gene-manipulating pesticides.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, March 8, 2019) Researchers from the U.S. and Switzerland have published their findings, a beginning assessment of how use of a new category of pesticides — dsRNA (double stranded RNA), which is less a traditional pesticide than a genetically based pesticide “technology” — might impact soils and non-target microorganisms in the soil. The co-authors (Kimberly M. Parker, PhD, et al.) note that, “The ecological risk assessment of these emerging pesticides necessitates an understanding of the fate of dsRNA molecules in receiving environments, among which agricultural soils are most important.” Their research appeared in late January 2019 in Environmental Science & Technology.

Previously, technical hurdles in measuring dsRNA had stymied scientists’ ability to quantify the genetic material and its degradation products in soil, but these investigators were able to attach a radioactive atom to the molecule, “tagging” it so it could be followed through a series of simulated soil systems representative of those in the “real” world. Researchers were able to measure the presence of the material at concentrations as low as a few nanograms of dsRNA per gram of soil. The work of these researchers represents the beginning of understanding the ecological risks of these emerging dsRNA pesticides.

They demonstrated that dsRNA molecules in soil suspensions “undergo adsorption to soil particle surfaces, degradation in solution, and potential uptake by soil microorganisms.” In addition, they found that in some soils, enzymes can degrade, or break down, the pesticide, and that some organisms actually “eat” the pesticide and the post-enzymatic fragments. One hypothesis the scientists are considering is that the soil particles may actually be protective of the molecules by slowing down their degradation, and that this effect may be more pronounced in finer, rather than coarser, soils.

How do these dsRNA pesticides work? They impede the expression of essential proteins in target pest insects via a cellular mechanism called RNA interference (RNAi). In RNAi, long dsRNA is “sliced” into small fragments, which then bind to “Argonaute” proteins. When that happens, one of the double strands of the dsRNA is removed, leaving the remaining strand available to bind to messenger RNA targets. Once bound, the Argonaute protein can cleave the messenger RNA, destroy it, or recruit other factors to regulate the target sequence in other ways. The target organism is left either stunted or dead. RNAi is widely used by researchers to silence genes in order to learn something about their function.

In the biochemical genetic engineering (GE) sector, it is hoped that such “gene silencing” technology can be engineered into plants so that they can, functionally, produce their own pesticides. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered the first four products using dsRNA technology in the summer of 2017. These products were developed in large part to help farmers control corn rootworm, a pest that has developed resistance to several other pesticides. When the rootworm ingests the dsRNA in the corn plant’s tissue, a gene in the insect called Snf7, which is essential for rootworm survival, gets turned off. The first expected commercial product will be a line of GE corn seeds called SmartStax Pro, which will contain both Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that is toxic to some pests) and a dsRNA called DvSnf7; it is expected to show up on the market by 2019 or 2020. This “stacking” of pesticide technologies by the agrochemical and agrogenetic industries is increasingly common, as they attempt to tackle issues of resistance to chemical pesticides by pairing them with GE approaches — even in the same product, as with the coming SmartStax Pro.

Mamta and M.V. Rajam wrote, in that same summer of 2017 in the journal Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, about this new approach to pest control. The authors generally touted the potential of this new GE approach — RNAi silencing, saying that the “ideal pest control strategy . . . should be specific in its action and should target [a] large number of pests without affecting non-targeted organisms.” However, they also identified that “off-target effect is one of the major limitations associated [with] RNAi technology. Off-target effects are describe[d] as the silencing of non-target genes in the same organism or in non-target organisms.

The Atlantic magazine’s 2017 coverage of this emerging technology, by Sarah Zhang, noted that RNAi is considered useful because of its specificity: it can turn off one gene in one species while, theoretically, leaving others unaffected. Organisms use this “gene silencing” on their own all the time. Scientists have created genetically modified crops, such as those grown from Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy, corn, and alfalfa seeds, and industry scientists have previously used RNAi to create GE crops (such as apples and potatoes that do not brown because their browning gene is silenced). The difference in the case of this emerging technology, to be launched in Dow’s (formerly Monsanto’s) DvSnf7 dsRNA product, is that it silences a gene in another living organism. Ms. Zhang says: “Rather than modifying itself, it modifies its environment.”

Among the concerns about this dsRNA/RNAi pesticide technology becoming “operational” in plants are hazards identified in an article in the August 2013 issue of the journal BioScience, by Jonathan G. Lundgren and Jian J. Duan. The authors acknowledge that “the creation of RNAi-based GM [genetically modified] crops that are lethal to pests or that deleteriously affect interactions of the pests with other organisms (including the crop) is a very real technology that has potential for limiting the impact of pests on crops.” They note that for “traditional” chemical and microbial pesticides and Bt crops, the modes of action are reasonably well understood, and that “laboratory nontarget toxicity assays can be focused and optimized on the basis of predictable effects.” They contrast that with assessing nontarget toxicity for RNAi pesticide technology, which produces those small “bits” of genetic material (small RNAs) from the source dsRNA: “Small RNAs often have off-target binding elsewhere in a nontarget species’ genome that makes predicting toxic effects and designing maximum-hazard dose assays challenging for the wide range of species potentially exposed.”

The authors further note that when these small RNAs, or siRNAs (small interfering RNAs) silence unintended (nontarget) genes, the hazards include: “off-target gene silencing, silencing the target gene in nontarget organisms, immune stimulation, and saturation of the RNAi machinery,” and that, “Knowledge gaps in the genomics and physiologies of highly exposed nontarget organisms currently preclude our ability to assess the activity spectrum of RNAi, determine whether toxicity assays will be sufficient in predicting the risks of RNAi-based crops, and explain how these risks may affect food webs associated with agroecosystems.” An additional unknown is how persistent siRNAs may be in the environment.

Adding to concern is the fact that, unlike traditional pesticides, which pose no risk to nontarget organisms if there is no physical or physiologic exposure to these toxicants in the environment, this GE technology represents unknown levels of potential exposure. If the technology is broadly adopted, the scale of the “unknown” is truly daunting, given the amount of land in the U.S. that is planted in corn, never mind its potential use in other commodity crops (soybeans, cotton, e.g.). Further, there is little-to-nothing yet understood about effects on ecosystems where this technology could be deployed, or effects on people (or other animals) after specific dsRNA/RNAi is ingested dietarily.

The subject study is a beginning look at the interaction of this GE pesticide technology in soils, but there are huge gaps in understanding about the organismic and environmental implications of this GE “pesticide.” One of the authors, Dr. Parker says, “Now that we have identified the major processes controlling pesticide degradation in soils, we will next investigate in detail the variables that control these processes to enable accurate ecological risk assessment of double-strand RNA pesticides. This will allow us to understand whether or not these new pesticides pose a risk to ecosystems.”

Beyond Pesticides wrote about RNAi technology back in 2015, when the GE (via RNAi) Arctic apple was on the horizon. It noted at that time that, as always, GE crops can represent threats to organic food production through cross-contamination, usually via bee pollen. Keep current on developments on this emerging GE pesticide technology via the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog, which tracks developments in research, policy making, and advocacy.

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

Source: https://www.scienceAll unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.daily.com/releases/2019/03/190301084910.htm

(Beyond Pesticides, March 7, 2019) A publication in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives highlights findings from a recent study showing that environmental concentrations of the neonicotinoid insecticides thiacloprid and imidacloprid increase expression of a gene linked to hormone-dependent breast cancer. Authors of the featured study uncovered a pathway through which neonicotinoids stimulate excess estrogen production, known to occur during the development of progressive hormone-dependent breast cancer. In the words of the authors, “Our findings highlight the need for further research to assess the potential impacts of low-dose and chronic exposure to neonicotinoids on endocrine processes affecting women’s health.”

The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives in April 2018 by researchers at the University of Quebec, is not the first to point to a potential link between neonicotinoid exposure and breast cancer. A 2015 study by the same research group revealed that the neonicotinoids thiacloprid and thiamethoxam, along with the herbicide atrazine, induce similar effects in breast cancer cells. In both studies, exposure to neonicotinoids alter promoter activity to induce heightened production of the enzyme aromatase, which is known to stimulate estrogen production and thereby cancer cell proliferation.

The recently published study, authored by Silke Schmidt, PhD, brings greater urgency to the group’s findings, quoting first author Elyse Caron-Beaudoin as stating, “This provides in vitro evidence that neonicotinoids can be endocrine disruptors and that aromatase may be one of their targets. Importantly, the promoter switch occurs at concentrations that are highly relevant to humans.” Indeed, authors were careful to test concentrations of thiacloprid and imidacloprid “similar to those found in urine samples of farmers and women from the general population in Japan (Nomura et al. 2013; Ueyama et al. 2015).”

These findings add to a growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that neonicotinoids cause unreasonable harm to the environment and human health. Neonicotinoids are infamously known for their central role in pollinator decline, but as more and more studies reveal, that is just the tip of the iceberg. Because these chemicals are broad-spectrum insecticides, beneficial soil dwelling insects, benthic aquatic insects, grain-eating vertebrates, along with pollinators are also victims of these systemic chemicals. Even slight deviations in exposure levels take a heavy toll on vulnerable wildlife. University researchers have found that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction and become emaciated.

The newfound evidence suggesting neonicotinoids as potential endocrine disruptors is of particular concern given that these insecticides are ubiquitous in the environment, found across land types and waterbodies, regardless of individual management decisions and practices. A recent study in Switzerland found neonicotinoids in sparrow feathers sampled from all 47 farms studied, including a range of organic, integrated-production and conventional farms. A 2018 study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers found neonics widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that harm aquatic insects—the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems.

Unsurprisingly, human exposure to neonicotinoids is also on the rise. A recent study by researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the University of Iowa found two metabolites of imidacloprid in drinking water that have never been detected previously, nor evaluated for their potential risks to human and environmental health. Experts warn that these metabolites may morph further into new forms of chlorinated disinfection byproducts (DBPs) during routine water treatment processes, with potential for high toxicity to humans due to loss of insect-specificity. The authors warn, “Because of their pervasiveness in source waters and persistence through treatment systems, neonicotinoids are likely present in other drinking water systems across the United States.”

With significance at known exposure levels, the newest findings linking neonicotinoids to endocrine disruption and breast cancer highlight yet another unacceptable hazard wrought by pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides holds the position that nothing short of a complete transformation to organic, least-toxic practices can begin to reverse the damage wrought by decades of unchecked poisoning. Stay abreast of new public health findings by reading Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. Join the movement to end destructive pesticide use by engaging at the local, state and federal levels to transform our agricultural system.

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

Sources: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, March 6, 2019) After a brief hiatus, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is continuing use of aquatic herbicides, including glyphosate, for invasive species management. Public pressure and feedback caused FWC to take a temporary pause from spraying while the commission collected public comment  through public hearings and emails from late January through February. FWC ultimately decided to resume spraying invasive species, and points to its improved integrated management system as reducing overall herbicide use.

Glyphosate, one of the 17 aquatic herbicides that FWC uses regularly has sparked opposition from environmentalists and the general public due to its wide usage and known adverse effects. According to FWC data, 12,263 pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides were used on Florida’s Lake Okeechobee in 2017.

About 175,000 people have signed North Palm Beach photographer and wildlife advocate Jim Abernathy’s petition titled “Stop The State-Sanctioned Poisoning of Our Lakes and Rivers!”. The petition decries the use of glyphosate to kill invasive aquatic plants and warns of subsequent nutrient pollution caused by decay. An excess of nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorus) in water bodies contribute to algal blooms. Eutrophication can eventually result in oxygen depletion and thereby decrease biodiversity. FWC denies that the invasive species management program contributes to either red tide (discoloration caused by an explosion of algae) or blue/green algae build up, citing lack of evidence and asserting that keeping low populations of the plant reduces buildup of decaying plant material.

Invasive aquatic plants, such as water hyacinth and hydrilla, plague Florida’s waterways. They displace native plant communities and disrupt recreation – particularly waterhyacinth, which can get so thick as to be impassable. Water hyacinth is a free-floating aquatic plant native to Amazon River in Brazil. Mature plants reproduce rapidly through horizontal stolons; populations can double in as little as 6-18 days. Mechanical means of management are difficult, as dense populations can weigh as much as 400 tons per acre. The plant then needs to be taken away from the waterway, and disposal can be expensive and time consuming. In response to the question, “Why can’t the FWC just use mechanical control and eliminate the use of herbicides?,” FWC noted:

“Research and tests conducted on Lake Okeechobee and other waterways throughout the state have consistently shown that mechanical harvesters alone are ineffective for large-scale control of these fast-growing exotics. In past tests, when harvesters replaced chemicals on Lake Okeechobee, the plants multiplied faster than they could be harvested, lake conditions became unsuitable for navigation and recreation, and there was a significant loss of native habitat. One crew applying herbicide can cover approximately 10 acres a day, whereas a crew operating a harvester can typically clear only .5 acre a day. Some biological controls can have moderate success on some types of plants but, despite many research efforts, we have not found a biological control agent that provides good results on floating plants such as water hyacinths.”

Those who use alternatives say that employing nonchemical strategies requires different approaches than chemical-intensive strategies. For example, timing of harvesting and the use of biological controls becomes an important factor in efficacy of these non-chemical approaches. Additionally, economists evaluating the cost of pesticide use in comparison with nonchemical approaches have evaluated secondary costs, such as those associated with adverse health effects, contamination, clean-up costs, weed resistance, and more. In most cases, chemical-intensive approaches are inherently more expensive.

Florida residents are concerned about the impact on people and wildlife of chemicals used, while FWC responds to this apprehension with the position that, “Herbicides registered for use in aquatic environments undergo years of rigorous evaluation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).” Additionally, FWC states that it works with universities and research institutions for “environmentally compatible and cost-effective strategies to apply herbicides to control target vegetation while conserving or enhancing non-target plants and animals.” However, with industry-influenced research and a history of negligence regarding the potential harm associated with undisclosed pesticide product ingredients (inerts), independent critiques have found EPA’s pesticide evaluation process to be inadequate.

While not ending herbicide use entirely, FWC is “recommitting to employing methods that minimize the quantity of herbicides needed to achieve the desired level of control.” A news release from March 1, 2019 details their improvements as:

• Accelerating the development of habitat management plans for individual lakes.
• Forming a Technical Assistance Group consisting of staff, partners and stakeholders.
• Improving the timing of herbicide-based invasive aquatic plant treatments.
• Exploring ways to better integrate and increase the strategic use of mechanical aquatic plant harvesting.
• Exploring new methods and technologies to oversee and increase accountability of aquatic plant control contractors.
• Developing pilot projects to explore better integrated plant management tools.
• Improving agency communication regarding plant management activities.

FWC is still accepting comments through [email protected]. You can read Beyond Pesticides’ 2018 article “Meeting the ‘Invasive Species’ Challenge” or our “Least-toxic Control of Weeds” for more information about Beyond Pesticides’ approach to weed management.

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

Sources: Naples News, News-Press, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

(Beyond Pesticides, March 5, 2019) Wild, edible plants subject to drift from the herbicide glyphosate during forestry operations can be contaminated with the chemical an entire year after an initial application, according to a new study published in the Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Glyphosate is often used in forestry to knock down unwanted trees, shrubs, and other plants after clear-cutting to provide room for the regrowth of trees deemed valuable. However, this new research shows that “non-target” species, such as raspberries and blueberries, eaten by wildlife and sometimes wild foraged by humans can retain significant levels of glyphosate contamination due to drift and overspray.

Forester Lisa Wood, PhD, from the University of Northern British Columbia began this research based on input and requests from Canadian indigenous First Nations communities. Back in 2013, shrubs foraged by traditional berry-pickers in northeastern British Columbia were sampled and found to contain glyphosate residues, leading to the need for a broader investigation. Dr. Wood sampled the roots and shoots of 10 plant species from an area that had been aerially sprayed with glyphosate a year prior as part of forestry operations to clear aspen and make room for coniferous re-plantings. The 10 plants, which included highbush cranberry, prickly rose, bunchberry, pink wintergreen, blueberries and red raspberries, among others, were compared against those chosen from a control region where glyphosate was not applied.

Results show that 12 of 23 plant shoots (new growth) sampled contain detectable levels of glyphosate one year after application, with some levels ranging over 1 ppm. The roots of plants contain higher levels on average, ranging from .1 ppm to over 4 ppm. Researchers specifically analyzed the fruit of raspberries and blueberries, finding average glyphosate levels of roughly .14 ppm.

“If a plant dies from an application it falls to the soil and there are microbes that gobble up the glyphosate,” Dr. Wood told the Vancouver Sun. “When they don’t die, they have interesting ways of coping, often by storing and isolating the glyphosate.” In general, plants appear to store glyphosate in their roots during dormancy, but translocate the chemical to shoots during the growing season. Dr. Wood found that lower growing plants appear to contain higher levels of glyphosate contamination than those farther from the ground.

Many of the plants sampled have levels of contamination over the maximum residue limit of glyphosate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets for some food commodities. Wild foragers and hikers will need to think about past chemical use in an area where wild fruiting berries occur. The study also has important ethnobotanical implications for North American indigenous First Nations, which use or have used the sampled plants for a variety of traditional means. As the study indicates, “Glyphosate may cause a disruption to the medicinal quality of plants harvested; there is evidence that glyphosate disrupts some plant secondary metabolites, and these metabolites could be the phytochemicals responsible for a given medicinal effect.”

Progressive forestry practices that forgo the use of toxic herbicides like glyphosate are gaining steam. In Canada, the Herbicides Alternative Project, a collaborative group consisting of the Tembec, Mushkegowuk Environmental Research Centre and other First Nations are working to reduce and eliminate forestry herbicides.

Eating pesticide-contaminated food does lead to higher levels of pesticides in one’s body, as a recent report found. Reduce pesticide contamination in your body by purchasing foods that are certified organic, which never allow glyphosate to be used on crops. Also, given the years-long contamination noted from this study, prohibits glyphosate in or near edible garden vegetables, particularly edible perennials. For more information on growing an organic garden, see Beyond Pesticides webpage on growing your own organic food.

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

Source: Vancouver Sun,  Canadian Journal of Forest Research

(Beyond Pesticides, March 4, 2019) Last week, U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) reintroduced the Saving America’s Pollinators Act (H.R.1337) to cancel specific bee-toxic pesticides and establish a review and cancellation process for all pesticides that are potentially harmful to pollinators. The specific pesticides targeted in the bill include the systemic insecticides imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, acetamiprid, sulfoxaflor, flupyradifurone, and fipronil. The bill also establishes requirements for review of other potentially bee-toxic chemicals by an independent pollinator protection board, and requires annual reports on the health and population status of pollinators. The bill creates a sustainable model for pollinator protection in the face of ongoing obstruction by an increasingly industry-influenced EPA. There are 29 cosponsors to date.

The current bill is the fifth version of Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA), which was first introduced by U.S. Representative Conyers (D-MI) in 2013. The newest version differs from previous bills in its bold definition of who should have responsibility for assessing harm to pollinators. SAPA 2019 calls for the establishment of a Pollinator Protection Board, to be composed of expert scientists, beekeepers, farmers, members of environmental organizations and other key stakeholders, nearly all of whom must not have any conflict of interest or affiliation with industry. The Pollinator Protection Board would be charged with annual review of potentially bee-toxic pesticides, to ensure continued assessments the initial suspensions. Beyond Pesticides holds the position that such continuous oversight free from conflict of interest is necessary to adequately protect vital pollinators, especially in the face of worsening mass declines. The current SAPA creates a similar board structure and authorities to the Organic Foods Production Act.

“Pollinators and other insects are vital to our economy and our livelihoods. This analysis is a call to action to do all we can to protect these valuable insects,” Rep. Blumenauer said, referencing a recent study “that paints a terrifying picture for the future of insects and our planet.”

Numerous scientific studies implicate systemic insecticides as key contributors to the global decline of pollinator populations. Systemic insecticides have been found to weaken both behavioral and immune resistance to parasites, pathogens, and temperature stress in honey bees and native pollinators. Several independent studies of managed and wild bees in the field have shown significant colony and population declines as a direct result of neonicotinoid crop treatment (1, 2, 3). There is widespread consensus in the scientific community that systemic insecticides are responsible for pollinator declines and need to be restricted, as evidenced by a 2018 “Call to restrict neonicotinoids” published in Science and signed by 233 scientists.

“The health of our food system depends on the health of our pollinators. The status quo is like flying blind – we shouldn’t be using these pesticides when we don’t know their full impact,” said Rep. Blumenauer in the introduction to the previous iteration of the bill. “The EPA has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this issue and protect pollinators.”

EPA scientists have found that neonicotinoids pose far-reaching risks to birds and aquatic invertebrates, in addition to pollinators. EPA’s risk assessments find deadly impacts to birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, poisoned insect prey, and contaminated grasses. University researchers have found that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction and become emaciated. A 2018 study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers found neonics widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that harm aquatic insects—the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems.

Human health is also at stake. A recent study by USGS and the University of Iowa found two metabolites of imidacloprid in drinking water that have never been evaluated for their potential risks to human and environmental health. Experts warn that these metabolites may morph further into new forms of chlorinated disinfection byproducts (DBPs) during routine water treatment processes, with potential for high toxicity to humans due to loss of insect-specificity.

Canada’s pesticide regulatory agency recently proposed a phase-out of two widely used neonicotinoids, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, based on harms to bees and aquatic ecosystems. In 2018, Europe instituted a ban on neonicotinoids for outdoor use based on based on the General Court of the European Union’s 2018 ruling affirming their harms to pollinators.

Rep. Blumenauer is offering a legislative remedy to address the U.S. pollinator crisis. But Congress won’t act unless members hear from their constituents. Read the latest draft of the bill to understand how the new act would transform pollinator protection in the U.S., and urge your representative to support the Saving America’s Pollinator Act 2019. With managed honey bee losses remaining at unsustainable levels and wild pollinators and insects of all taxa at risk of extinction, it is time for the U.S. to finally protect pollinators.

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

Source: congress.gov

(Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2019) The costs of pesticide use extend far beyond the invoices farmers pay for purchase of the chemicals to use on their crops. The real costs related to pesticide use and exposure include those of health care, lost productivity and income, and environmental damage (loss of environmental services and biodiversity; compromised air, water, and soil quality). There has been relatively little research focused on those real and extensive costs; this Daily News Blog turns its attention to several that have made the attempt.

January 2019 saw the publication of a new book, Sicker Fatter Poorer: The Urgent Threat of Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals to Our Health and Future … and What We Can Do About It, by Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, which examines how some chemicals — including organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides — disrupt human endocrine (hormonal) function, and damage health, sometimes irreparably. The book further investigates the economic costs of associated diseases and other health problems to the U.S. economy — on the order of 2.3% of GDP (gross domestic product), or $340 billion, annually. As Dr. Trasande notes, “The reality is that policy predicts exposure, exposure predicts disease and disease ultimately costs our economy.”

Dr. Trasande is a leading researcher in children’s environmental health whose research focuses on organic contaminants as endocrine disruptors; he leads one of 35 centers that participate in the National Institute of Health’s Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program. Dr. Trasande is the Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor, Vice Chair for Research in the Department of Pediatrics, and Chief of the Division of Environmental Pediatrics at New York University (NYU) School of Medicine. He also directs the NYU Center for the Investigation of Environmental Hazards.

An endocrine-disrupting compound is an “exogenous substance that causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, secondary to changes in endocrine function.” The endocrine disruptive impacts of exposures to these compounds include “scrambling” of hormones’ chemical communications, which guide metabolic (and other) processes. Exposures can lead to infertility and other male and female reproductive dysfunctions, prostate and breast cancer, birth defects, cardiopulmonary disease, neurobehavioral and learning dysfunction, and immune dysregulation. Another very significant impact is on the body’s use of nutrients — exposure to endocrine disruptors (EDs) can influence the conversion of nutrients’ energy (primarily as glucose) into fat rather than muscle (or other kinds of tissue), and contribute to widespread obesity and diabetes.

The more than 1,000 chemicals that disrupt hormonal function fall into four categories: pesticides, used not only in agriculture, but also, for pest and weed management (on managed turf/landscapes, in buildings, on human and animal bodies, and in home gardens); bisphenol A (BPA), found in linings of aluminum cans, in some plastics, and on cash register receipts; brominated flame retardants, used in furniture, electronics, and mattresses; and phthalates, found in food packaging and personal care products.

The net recommendation of Dr. Trasande’s book for individuals is to reduce exposures to endocrine disruptors: avoid products with phthalates and those with flame retardants; avoid plastics and canned foods; and opt whenever possible for organically grown foods, which are protective of human health from the health impacts of pesticides.

As noted, the economic costs of pesticide use, because of disease and disability impacts, have received scant attention, but that may be changing. Dr. Trasande was the lead author (with 11 co-authors) of a 2015 investigation that attempted to estimate such costs: “Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union,” published in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. The study aimed to measure a range of both health and economic costs that can be reasonably attributed to endocrine-disrupting chemical exposures in the European Union (EU).

That study analyzed the incidence of health impacts from endocrine disruptor exposures and the estimated costs of these sequellae through a multivariate approach that included an assessment of the “fractional contribution” of the environment to causation of illness, a method developed in 1981 by the U.S. Institute of Medicine and in broad use until today.

The co-authors’ conclusions: “EDC [endocrine-disrupting chemicals] exposures in the EU are likely to contribute substantially to disease and dysfunction across the life course with costs in the hundreds of billions of Euros per year. These estimates represent only those EDCs with the highest probability of causation; a broader analysis would have produced greater estimates of burden of disease and costs. . . . The most substantial costs were related to loss of IQ and intellectual disability attributable to prenatal organophosphate exposure; base case estimates identified €146 billion in attributable costs, whereas sensitivity analyses suggested that costs might actually range from €46.8 to 195 billion annually. Phthalate-attributable adult obesity was the second largest driver of costs, at €15.6 billion per year. The total costs of all conditions probably attributable to EDCs were €191 billion, with sensitivity analyses suggesting costs ranging from €81.3 to 269 billion annually.”

The researchers pointedly comment on the failure of current policy and regulations to account for these impacts, and note that, because longitudinal studies of EDC exposure early in life are only just beginning to be done, the impacts could swell with those coming results. The co-authors are hopeful that this study will, in its use of this model, transform decision making by governments re: environmental health risks toward emphasis on complete assessment of the potential costs of failing to prevent chronic disease through the use of safer alternatives to EDCs.

The co-authors further comment: “These costs will accrue annually insofar as exposures that are harmful continue unabated. . . . Calculations of the health and economic benefits associated with reducing exposure to environmental chemicals have proven extremely informative to regulatory decision-making. . . . Regulatory action to limit exposure to the most widely prevalent and potentially hazardous EDCs is likely to produce substantial economic benefits. These economic benefits should inform decision-making on measures to protect public health.”

And notably, they point to the importance of this work for the U.S. and the developing world: “The findings described here suggest potentially large burdens of disease and associated costs in the developed world, insofar as exposures are similar. Future studies could extend and apply this approach to the U.S., where the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, among other studies, offers arguably more comprehensive and national reference points for extrapolation. In the industrializing world, the attributable disease burden and costs could well be higher in a much weaker regulatory framework.”

A number of other studies have looked at aspects of the “costs” issue, perhaps most recently, a 2018 investigation by Teresa M. Attina, MD, PhD, et al. (including, again, Dr. Trasande), published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. “Racial/ethnic disparities in disease burden and costs related to exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the United States: an exploratory analysis” reminds readers that, baseline, racial and ethnic disparities exist in incidence of chronic disease, in access to appropriate healthcare, and notably, in exposures to ED chemicals as a function of the built environment, diet, and use of consumer products, all of which are influenced at least in part by socioeconomic status. (See the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog archive on Environmental Justice issues.) This investigation also expands the “costs” discussion by evidencing the disproportionate costs of ED exposures, and associated diseases and health impacts, across racial and ethnic groups.

The study looked at the distribution of ED exposures and levels of “disease burden” in populations identified as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Mexican-American, Other Hispanic, and Other/Multicultural, and used the “fractional contribution” method (see above) to estimate costs of “environmentally mediated disease.” Total cost for exposure-related disease was $179.8 billion for non-Hispanic whites (52.3% of total costs); $56.8 billion for non-Hispanic black (16.5% of total); $50.1 billion for Mexican-Americans (14.6% of total); $5.7 billion for “other” Hispanics (1.6% of total); and $51.7 billion (15.0% of total) for those deemed Other/Multicultural. For context, those populations as percentages of total population are: non-Hispanic white, 66.1%; non-Hispanic black, 12.6%; Mexican-American, 13.5%; Other Hispanic, .4%; and Other/Multicultural, 7.4%.

Nearly all exposure levels and incidence of associated health issues were higher for the racial and/or ethnic minority groups (as proportions of the study’s target populations). The data show that, for example, the “loss of IQ points and intellectual disabilities” impacts due to organophosphate exposure, measured as a percentage of total cases across all racial/ethnic categories, were (in the same categorical order as above): 44.2%, 14.9%, 13.4%, 12.3%, and 14.7% — showing the proportionally outsize impacts on minority populations. Disparities are reflected, unsurprisingly, in the costs noted above, and in the disaggregated and proportional costs of the organophosphate exposures and health problems across groups.

The authors note that, “Persistent health disparities have been extensively documented in the United States, related to both medical and nonmedical factors. Access to care, insurance coverage, and ability to pay are among the more ‘conventional’ factors contributing to health disparities. . . . The higher levels of exposure in racial/ethnic minorities together with disparities in the availability of resources considered to be protective factors, such as green spaces or healthy food options, can have a cumulative effect, substantially contributing to racial/ethnic disparities in health. Our results are consistent with existing evidence that racial/ethnic minorities may be disproportionately affected by the negative health effects of toxic environmental exposure.”

They further opine, “Effective strategies [to reduce ED exposure] at the individual level need to be complemented by strategies that target the entire household, as well as state and federal policies. . . . Here we encourage a paradigm shift when evaluating health disparities, focusing on [those] driven by different exposures across race/ethnicity groups. We believe this shift may identify new opportunities for disease prevention in the demographic segments of the U.S. population who need it most, as well as offer opportunities to devise social policies that specifically address environmental inequalities.” Policy makers should attend to these realities in any case, but the cost arguments may provide additional incentive in establishing more-protective regulation of ED chemicals, and pesticides, in particular.

Beyond Pesticides has covered some aspects of the costs of pesticide use, including a look at a 2005 publication, in Environment, Development, and Sustainability, on “Environmental and Economic Costs of the Application of Pesticides Primarily in the United States,” by David Pimentel. This investigation conducted an    assessment of the (then) approximately $10 billion in environmental and societal damages as a result of pesticide use. The author analyzed pesticide impacts on: “public health; livestock and livestock product losses; increased control expenses resulting from pesticide-related destruction of natural enemies and from the development of pesticide resistance in pests; crop pollination problems and honeybee losses; crop and crop product losses; bird, fish, and other wildlife losses; and governmental expenditures to reduce the environmental and social costs of the recommended application of pesticides.”

The study identified the annual major (as of 2005) economic and environmental losses attributable to pesticide use at $1.1 billion in public health costs; $1.5 billion due to developed pesticide resistance in organisms; $1.4 billion in crop losses caused by pesticides; $2.2 billion related to bird losses; and $2.0 billion due to groundwater contamination. Dr. Pimentel noted that this analysis was not comprehensive, and that had it been — i.e., “if the full environmental, public health, and social costs could be measured as a whole — the total cost might be nearly double. . . . Such a complete and long-term cost/benefit analysis of pesticide use would reduce the perceived profitability of pesticides,” and presumably, their widespread use.

More recently, Beyond Pesticides provided coverage of a 2016 study that set out the estimated cost of ED-induced reproductive disorders (uterine fibroids associated with exposure to the organochlorine DDE, or diphenyldichloroethene) in women in the EU — the equivalent in U.S. dollars of $1.4 billion annually. In 2017, a European study that showed that the costs of the disease burden and healthcare related to chemical environmental exposures, writ large, may constitute a figure somewhere north of 10% of global gross domestic product (GDP). That figure should shock everyone, motivate policymakers to become much more proactive on the chemical regulatory front, and move the public to help raise the alarm on the risks of the use of pesticides and other dangerous chemicals.

Read more from Beyond Pesticides about ED pesticides and chemicals, and ways to protect people from exposures, including eating organically and advocating for better regulatory policies generally, and through Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week. In addition, upcoming is a once-a-year opportunity to learn more, and to meet scientists and advocates at the Beyond Pesticides 36^th National Pesticide Forum, April 13–14, 2019 in Irvine, California.

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

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4399291

(Beyond Pesticides, February 28, 2019) Earlier this month, a team of U.S. scientists published a meta-analysis of studies on glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), concluding that the evidence “suggests a compelling link between exposures to GBH and increased risk of NHL [non-Hodgkin lymphoma],” corroborating findings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The analysis, authored by researchers from University of California, Berkeley, University of Washington, Seattle, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is the latest to support the conclusions established by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that products containing glyphosate pose a cancer risk to humans. As research continues to accumulate on the risks posed by this chemical, the case for transitioning to less toxic alternatives to safeguard public health is becoming increasingly urgent.

Researchers took every available published human study on NHL and glyphosate, including the most recently updated data from the ongoing U.S. Agricultural Health Study (AHS), in conducting their review. Focus was put on individuals within these studies exposed to the highest amounts of glyphosate. The reasoning, researchers indicate, is that if there is a true association between glyphosate and a health outcome like cancer, exposures to higher amounts for a longer period of time is most likely to reveal this link. Higher exposures are also less likely to present concerns with confounders and other statistical interference. The study authors indicate this is the same approach that has been employed to estimate risks for chemicals like benzene and formaldehyde, but no similar analysis has been conducted on glyphosate.

Statistical analysis revealed there to be a 41% increased risk of NHL resulting from high exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides. To compare and add weight to their results, researchers also conducted a second statistical analysis using older (2005) AHS data, which surprisingly revealed a higher, 45% risk.

“This paper makes a stronger case than previous meta-analyses that there is evidence of an increased risk of NHL due to glyphosate exposure,” said co-author Lianne Sheppard, PhD, a professor in the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences department at the University of Washington to the Guardian. “From a population health point of view there are some real concerns.”

Dr. Sheppard participated in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s advisory council on the agency’s review of glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential, and joined other advisors in a letter to the agency stated it did not follow proper scientific methods. “It was pretty obvious they didn’t follow their own rules. Is there evidence that it is carcinogenic? The answer is yes,” Dr. Sheppard told the Guardian. “As a result of this research, I am even more convinced that it is.”

As is typical of destructive and outdated industries, agrichemical giant BayerMonsanto has worked to teach the controversy to its pro-pesticide advocates, with brazen attempts to muddle the science, or scuttle official inquiries into glyphosate’s safety.

There is strong evidence that BayerMonsanto had ghostwritten research on glyphosate (Roundup) that was later attributed to academics, according to a New York Times report on Monsanto’s internal emails. There is now an investigation by the Inspector General for EPA into whether or not an EPA official engaged in collusion with Monsanto regarding the agency’s safety assessment of glyphosate by working to kill a separate evaluation on glyphosate from the US Department of Health and Human Services. The collusion was uncovered in the discovery phase of a lawsuit filed by cancer victims that link their illness to glyphosate exposure.

Online trolls and disinformation campaigns waged by the chemical industry continue, which often influences public opinion. Independent scientific studies are critically important during this period. There is strong evidence of glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties, and more reason than ever to get active in your community to eliminate not only its use, but the whole range of toxic synthetic herbicides and pesticides in favor of less toxic alternatives. Contact Beyond Pesticides for assistance in organizing your community, including strategies and model policies that can work to replace toxic pesticide use.

For more information about glyphosate and its danger to health and the environment, see Roundup Causes Cancer, Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed, and Beyond Pesticides general fact sheet on Glyphosate.

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

Source: Reviews in Mutation Research (peer-reviewed journal), The Guardian, UW News (press release)

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2019) U.S. PIRG tested 20 common beers and wines and found glyphosate residues in all but one. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the most commonly used agrichemical in the world. Though it is linked to many health and environmental issues, there is no current EPA limit for glyphosate residues in beer or wine. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not regularly test for glyphosate on either food or beverages.

Researchers used an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) to detect glyphosate levels. Sutter Home Merlot had the highest level of glyphosate residues at 51 ppb (parts per billion). Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon and Beringer Estates Moscato had slightly lower levels: 36.3 ppb and 42.6 ppb, respectively. Organic wines results were ~5 ppb.

The beer samples had just slightly lower average levels of residues, the highest being Tsingtao beer with 49 ppb. Miller Lite, Corona, and Budweiser ranged from 25-30 ppb. Samuel Smith’s Organic Lager had a 5.7 ppb glyphosate concentration, and Peak Beer Organic IPA was the only sample with no detectable level of glyphosate.

By U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates, nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate are annually applied to U.S. crops. Vineyards spray glyphosate between rows of grapes to kill weeds. Farmers growing grains for beer often use “Roundup Ready” crops that have been genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide, or they might use it to “kill down” crops at the end of the season so they can be harvested earlier.

While it is surprising that even the organic products had residues of this distinctly non-organic product, they could have been contaminated by the pesticide drifting up to several hundred feet from other farms or from glyphosate leftover in the soil if the farm was formerly conventional.

Glyphosate is associated with a wide range of illnesses, including genetic damage, liver and kidney damage, and endocrine disruption. A recent meta-analysis found the overall meta-relative risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was increased by 41% in individuals exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides. The herbicide is also an antibiotic and disrupts human microbiota. The U.S. PIRG report notes that even 0.1 ppb of glyphosate can harm beneficial gut bacteria, while pathogenic gut bacteria show resistance. Concerningly, bacteria exposed to widely used herbicides like roundup develop antibiotic resistance 100,000 times faster than average.  Additionally, 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has been shown to stimulate certain types of breast cancer cells.

Not only damaging to human health, glyphosate also has a striking negative impact on the environment. It harms bee gut microbiota, destroys pollinator habitat, and contaminates waterways.

The levels of residues found in the wine and beer samples are not comparatively high to other foods. EPA allows levels of glyphosate residues in food at levels ranging from 200 to 400,000 ppb. For reference, recent testing conducted by Friends of the Earth found average residues in oat cereals to be 360 ppb.

Given the multiple avenues that one is exposed to glyphosate on any given day (cereal, wine, vegetables, rain, air, etc.), it should come as no surprise that glyphosate is found nearly ubiquitously in human bodies – a recent U.S. study found traces of glyphosate in 93% of tested urine samples.

U.S. PIRG recommends several changes at the end of its report, including that the EPA ban use of glyphosate in alignment with a precautionary principle. However, a ban of a particular pesticide can result in an equally offensive, but slightly chemically different, replacement. Investigative reporter Carey Gillam calls glyphosate “the poster child for the bigger pesticide problem.” There is an urgent and ongoing need to transition from chemically-dependent, toxic practices to regenerative, organic agricultural systems. See Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture program page.

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

Source:CALPIRG