(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2018) Current strategies aimed at managing herbicide resistant weeds in agriculture are not effective and may exacerbate weed problems, according to research published earlier this year by scientists at University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom (UK). While the conventional wisdom in farming, promoted strongly by the chemical industry, is that resistance can be adequately managed by rotating the herbicides used, researchers did not find evidence to support this strategy. In an ode to Occam’s razor, a philosophical theory that hypotheses with the fewest assumptions may be the correct one, researchers found the best method to reduce weed resistance to herbicides was to reduce the overall use of herbicides.

Sheffield scientists focused their research on the occurrence of a common weed in the UK called black-grass. This weed was found to occur on 88% of the farmland tested in the study, and has recently been spreading into new areas it had never before colonized. Rob Freckleton, PhD, a population biologist and co-author of the study indicated to Science Daily, “The driver for this spread is evolved herbicide resistance: we found that weeds in fields with higher densities are more resistant to herbicides.”

Thus, the more abundant black-grass was found to be, the more researchers found resistant versions of the plant. The study investigated a range of factors that may be related to herbicide resistance, including management techniques that switch up herbicides used, or plant different crops. However, resistance was linked solely with how often and how much herbicide was used on a particular farm. Dr. Freckleton explains to Science Daily, “The results were simple: farms that used a greater volume of herbicide had more resistance. Beyond this we found little evidence for a role of any other management techniques: neither the diversity of chemicals used — for example whether farmers used a variety of herbicides or just one — or diversity of cropping mattered, despite both being advocated as methods to reduce the evolution of resistance.”

Scientists are confident in this determination because, over the course of the study, weed abundance did not change, despite farmers changing cultural practices. “Once resistance has evolved it does not seem to go away,” Dr. Freckleton said. “Two years later, fields with high densities still had high densities, despite farmers employing a suite of different management techniques.” As far as switching to another herbicide, researchers found that, once black-grass evolved resistance to one herbicide, it became much more likely to develop resistance to other herbicides.

The data implies that these ineffective measures may in fact be hurting farmer’s wallets. “We estimate that the economic costs of this are very high: the costs of weed management have doubled as a consequence of evolved resistance,” Dr. Freckleton notes.

Although weeds on farms using genetic engineering (GE) were not investigated as a result of a UK ban on growing such crops, the study is instructive for herbicide use on these farms in the U.S. Study after study has found that GE crops lead to increased use of toxic herbicides in attempts to control resistant weeds. And now, data finds the industry’s “solution” – namely, adding new, different herbicides to the mix, such as 2,4-D and dicamba, is not only an ineffective method that further endangers public health and neighboring cropland, it is likely going to cost farmers even more as it does nothing to address the fundamental issue causing resistance.

The good news is that the answer to this problem is as simple as understanding it: to limit herbicide resistance, reduce herbicide use. As Dr. Freckleton explains, “This is evolved resistance: when we manage natural systems in a selective manner, evolution is inevitable.” To manage resistance for the long term, organic agriculture has shown a viable path forward. Organic production reserves even the use of least-toxic herbicides to only when they are truly necessary, as a focus is placed on working with, rather than controlling natural systems.

For more information on herbicide resistance, see Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering program page.

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

Source: Science Daily, Nature Ecology and Evolution

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2018) A new international study finds that the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources worldwide has reached critical proportions, causing biodiversity loss and land degradation that threaten the food and water security of an estimated 3.2 billion people. Congress must act for the U.S. to become a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, joining the global community in working to develop and implement solutions to the biodiversity crisis.

Urge your U.S. Representatives and Senators to call for a vote in Congress to support the U.S. becoming a signatory to the UN Convention on Biodiversity.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report unearths the crisis faced by two-fifths of the world’s population due to the worsening of land degradation, declining species biodiversity, and the intensification of climate change. Though the report presents a bleak picture of how humans have substantially degraded the natural resources essential to survival, it holds up indigenous knowledge and land-use practices as potential models for how to use natural resources for human benefit, while still protecting biodiversity. However, the cultures that possess this knowledge are also in jeopardy. More than 60 percent of indigenous languages and cultures in the Americas are declining or dying.

In addition to detailing the root causes of biodiversity losses and ecosystem damages, the report also examines the social, cultural, political, and economic influences that can affect long-lasting change. Central to the extensively peer-reviewed report is a strong and often-repeated message that the window of opportunity for reversing land degradation and its impacts is closing. The report’s Chair, Robert Watson, PhD, warns that, “We must act to halt and reverse the unsustainable use of nature –or risk not only the future we want, but even the lives we currently lead.”

Biodiversity has been most strongly affected by agriculture, followed by forestry, infrastructure development, urban encroachment, and climate change. The resultant reduction and elimination in the suitability of habitats is the major cause of biodiversity losses. IPBES identified a nearly 40 percent decline in the average population size of wild terrestrial vertebrate species and an 81 percent decline in freshwater vertebrate species between 1970 and 2012. UN Administrator of the Development Program, Achim Steiner, argues that “Biodiversity and the ecosystem services it supports are not only the foundation for life on Earth, but critical to the livelihoods and well-being of people everywhere.”

Agriculture affects biodiversity through use of pesticides and fertilizers in chemical-intensive farming, and direct destruction of habitats in order to expand farmland. Concrete solutions offered in the report include: halting agriculture expansion into native habitats, improving soil health, conservation agriculture, shifts toward integrated crop, livestock, and forestry agriculture, more plant-based foods, and food waste reduction.

Chief among the cultural drivers of land degradation is the high-consumption lifestyles of people living in advanced industrialized countries, the growing consumption in emerging economies, and increasing population growth. All of these behaviors cause land degradation through natural resource and mineral extraction and by fueling agricultural and urban sprawl. Such activities have left less than 25% of the Earth’s surface free from degradation, mostly in deserts, tundra, mountains, and polar -regions.

Authors of the IPBES report have dubbed its findings “a wake-up call for all of us.” It will also undoubtedly serve that function for the 198 parties to the Convention on Biodiversity who will be attending the upcoming meeting in Egypt in November of this year. Aided by conclusions drawn from the report, agreements will be made on targets for improving biodiversity and strengthening compliance with the treaty. Although the U.S. is a party to the convention, it is not a signatory, which means that it is not legally bound by treaty provisions.

Urge your U.S. Representatives and Senators to call for a vote in Congress to support the U.S. becoming a signatory to the UN Convention on Biodiversity.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2018) Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is getting plenty of attention for what the public and some members of Congress see as his spendthrift and potentially corrupt behaviors since taking office in early 2017. Pundits and prognosticators who focus on the Washington, DC scene are speculating that this attention is not welcome by the White House, and wonder if Mr. Pruitt will soon be on the “wrong end of a Trump tweet.” 

This may be refreshing news to environmental advocates, scientists, and public health experts, who have objected to the “changes” he’s brought to the agency, which frequently favor industry interests over science-based protection of the environment and public health. EPA’s moves to reduce enforcement, roll back protective regulations, and install industry-friendly personnel have been covered extensively by Beyond Pesticides; examples include: “Where Has All the EPA Enforcement Gone,” “The Threat to Scientific Integrity at EPA,” and regular posts in its Daily News Blog.

Administrator Pruitt calls his approach to EPA’s function “Back to Basics,” which he says includes a refocus on EPA’s “intended mission, a return of power to the states, and creation of an environment where jobs can grow.” The agency website sets out the “three Es” of the Back-to-Basics agenda: Environment: protecting the environment; Economy: sensible regulations that allow economic growth; and Engagement: engaging with state and local partners. The new agenda was announced in April 2017 at a coal mine in Sycamore, Pennsylvania — a telling gesture that betrays Pruitt’s actual allegiances: to the extractive, chemical, industrial, and transportation interests that are the chief sources of environmental degradation in the U.S.

Of course, neither the intent of its creators nor the mission of EPA identifies job creation and economic growth as aspects of the agency’s purview or goals. The agency’s mission reads: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the federal government of the United States which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.” The back-to-basics language that the Pruitt EPA has invented is a sleight of speech intended to skew public perception of what the EPA does, and thereby, create “cover” for its deconstruction of environmental protections.

One might presume that Mr. Pruitt, in promoting this agenda for the EPA, would also be promoting a culture of responsible spending by the agency. On the contrary, his spending has been far beyond basic, and has included routine travel by first-class airline flights or military jets and staying at high-end hotels. In June 2017, he and his aides racked up $90,000 in travel costs — which amount doesn’t include the cost of his 24/7 security detail. Mother Jones highlighted an example: “On Monday, June 5, accompanied by his personal security detail, Pruitt . . . raced to New York on a military jet, at a cost of $36,068.50, to catch a plane to Rome.”

Mr. Pruitt has also spent lavishly on contending with what he and his officials call “security threats.” To be sure, he has received four-to-five times as many threats as his predecessor, though the credibility of such threats is not clear — nor is it clear how flying first class keeps him any safer than flying coach. Politico notes that some of the threats have comprised only “threatening tweets and a menacing postcard.”

EPA initially claimed that Mr. Pruitt has a “blanket waiver” to upgrade from coach airline travel because of those “security threats.” That claim was investigated and discovered to be false; the General Services Administration bans “blanket waivers,” and mandates that government employees must request a waiver for each trip. After Politico publicly pointed this out, EPA walked back its claim.

Administrator Pruitt’s extreme concern about security has moved some observers to suggest a level of paranoia that is costing taxpayers a bundle. The spending on accommodations to perceived security threats includes $43,000 on installation of a soundproof phone booth in his office, and $9,000 to sweep his office for listening devices, and install biometric locks and “access control card readers.” His own employees are required to have an escort to come into his office, and are sometimes prohibited from taking notes at meetings. Pruitt’s team also guards his schedule carefully; some believe this is an effort to be unpredictable and so, less easily targeted. But it also makes it difficult for the Fourth Estate to cover the Administrator’s activities. Kate Yoder, writing for Grist, says, “The secretive schedule is a departure from the norm and shields him from some level of scrutiny. It’s unclear if Pruitt is more concerned about outside threats or keeping journalists and the public in the dark about what he’s up to.”

Mr. Pruitt has also insisted on an unprecedented, round-the-clock security detail to accompany him when he travels — including on vacation trips to the Rose Bowl and Disneyland, and on frequent trips back home to Oklahoma. Costs for this security detail — which always flies first class — have not been released, but CNN has indicated that they come in at approximately $2 million per year, not including travel, training, and equipment.

In early April, Rep. Elijah Cummings and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi called for hearings on whether the Trump administration has “adequate controls” to protect taxpayer money in light of recent “extravagant air travel” by cabinet members, calling out in particular Pruitt’s flight to Italy for a summit in 2017 that racked up $120,249, and naming it “questionable and expensive travel at the taxpayer expense.”

That Administrator Scott Pruitt came to his EPA position with a decidedly industry-friendly bent is old news. That history, which includes 14 lawsuits against the agency — 13 of which also included players from EPA-regulated industries — continues to be relevant context in which to consider the activity of Mr. Pruitt and his EPA. In what may be an example of a quid pro quo arrangement tied to a fossil fuel industry lobbyist, in the last week of March ABC News reported that Pruitt had secured an unusually advantageous deal for his living arrangement — in a high-price Capitol Hill neighborhood — during his first six months in DC.

The rental property belongs in part (via an LLC) to the wife of a lobbyist, J. Steven Hart, who not only has contributed to Mr. Pruitt’s political campaigns, but also, represents a liquefied natural gas company. Administrator Pruitt secured a deal to pay $50 a night for a single bedroom in a condo, and only for the nights he actually used it, expending a total of $6,100 over the six months. Mr. Pruitt’s daughter stayed in a second bedroom while interning at the White House and frequently used the condo kitchen, though that was not part of the deal. Bloomberg News reported that initially, Mr. Pruitt could not produce any documentation demonstrating a lease arrangement or any rental payments; the landlord ultimately provided EPA officials with such evidence.

EPA officials defended the arrangement; EPA official Justina Fugh indicated that Mr. Pruitt had “paid a fair price for what amounts to just a room. . . . So I don’t even think that the fact the house is owned by a person whose job is to be a lobbyist causes us concern.” Critics think otherwise: Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, said in a news release, “This appears to be a gift from a lobbyist to the EPA administrator. . . . Scott Pruitt seems to be renting at well below market value — from a family member of a lobbyist who has business before the EPA.” Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said, “At the very least, it doesn’t look good for the administrator of EPA to have rented an apartment from the wife of an energy industry lobbyist who represents companies regulated by EPA.”

The editorial board of The Washington Post wrote, on April 2, that Ms. Fugh “described this as ‘a routine business transaction.’ Yet anyone who has suffered through finding a rental apartment in central Washington knows that reserving a bedroom for yourself at that price, paid for only sporadically and when you are in residence, without a year-long commitment, with a second bedroom available for family, is highly improbable if not impossible — without connections. . . . If Mr. Pruitt had paid fair rent on realistic terms, the connection would be merely concerning. In light of the cushy deal the administrator got, the arrangement is pure swamp.” The New York Times’s Paul Krugman went further in a March 30 Tweet, calling the deal a “de facto bribe.”

Media have covered this story as a potential conflict of interest scandal, noting that the arrangement creates at least the appearance of impropriety, if it does not constitute actual impropriety. Congressional Representative Carlos Curbelo has called Mr. Pruitt’s conduct “an embarrassment.” He and another Florida Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, have called for his resignation. Whether Administrator Pruitt’s spending or his special deal on housing would on their own merits win the attention of the White House is debatable. But the growing attention to Mr. Pruitt’s behavior is not likely welcome by the administration, which has in the past not appreciated being embarrassed by certain behaviors of its Cabinet members or appointees.

Source: https://grist.org/briefly/scott-pruitt-might-be-on-the-wrong-end-of-a-trump-tweet-soon-heres-why

(Beyond Pesticides, April 5, 2018) An industry-backed attempt to enact pesticide preemption in the state of Maine is officially over after bill LD 1853 was voted down by a 9-2 margin earlier this week.  The bill, introduced by state Senator Tom Saviello (R-Wilton), resembled a similar bill that failed in the same legislative committee last spring. With an ever increasing number of communities in Maine stepping up to protect their residents and unique local environment from pesticide contamination, the repeated introduction of preemption legislation means that health advocates and forward-thinking communities must continue to remain vigilant, and ready to fight to maintain their right to home rule.

LD 1853 would have taken away the rights of Maine municipalities to enact policies which wholly apply to private property. “I thought if there was a bill that would come back before us again it would be different,” said state Representative Richard Pickett (R-Dixfield) to the Portland Press Herald. “But we virtually had almost a duplicate bill and that troubled me.”

While last year’s failed legislation was modeled almost word for word from the notorious industry lobby group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the changes in the new bill were superficial, and the intent remained the same. LD 1853 exempted licensed applicators in the state from municipal pesticide regulations. The impact of such a policy would stop an ordinance like the one recently passed in Portland, ME from applying to lawn care services like TruGreen, which use toxic pesticides on a regular basis as part of their business plan.

As reported by the Portland Press Herald, each iteration of this legislation has been promoted primarily by the state’s Governor, Paul LePage (R). In 2017, after the original ALEC-model bill failed, the Governor tried to insert preemption language as part of state budget negotiations. Governor LePage, who has a 53% disapproval rating, the 8^th highest in the nation, is term limited and cannot seek reelection later this year.

While LePage may be on his way out, there is no indication that ALEC or the pesticide industry will stop attempts to institute state preemption in Maine, or any other state. The industry has attacked local laws in both Maryland and Hawaii, with an unfortunate degree of success. In both cases, despite no explicit preemption language codified into law in either state, industry argued that there is “implicit” preemption, whereby the state “occupies the field” when it comes to pesticide regulation. While options to appeal were limited in Hawaii, lawmakers in Montgomery County, Maryland, which passed a landmark ban on public and private cosmetic pesticide use, decided to appeal a Circuit Court ruling that overturned aspects of the ban that applied to private property.

The fact remains that, as ruled in the 1991 Supreme Court case Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, FIFRA sets a floor, not a ceiling, which states and local communities can build additional laws upon in order to protect their unique local environment or their residents’ health. The court however also ruled that, while the federal government could not impose pesticide preemption, states would maintain the ability to do so.  Thus, ALEC and the pesticide industry went state-by-state, working to pass preemption legislation throughout the 1990s, fearing the type of legislation passed by Maine local governments like Portland, South Portland, and Ogunquit.

Some communities, such as Oregon’s Lincoln County, have bucked state preemption laws despite the likelihood of a lawsuit. Late last year, a citizen-led ballot initiative banning aerial spraying passed by 61 votes. It was quickly followed by a lawsuit led by a local farmer who uses aerial pesticide sprays. Another locality, Fairfax, CA, passed a private property pesticide neighbor notification requirement in the early 2000s, and has kept the requirement in its Town code despite warning letters from the state. Last year, the communities of Oak Park and Evanston, IL both passed resolutions requesting the state of Illinois overturn pesticide preemption laws.

As the over a dozen localities in Maine that have pesticide ordinances that apply to private property show, when the state provides the opportunity, there is strong demand for local pesticide reform.

Tell us you’re ready to fight against the pesticide industry, and for a pesticide-free community by signing the pledge today. And for more information on why pesticide preemption is a threat to our local democratic process, see Beyond Pesticides’ State Preemption Law fact sheet.

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

Source:  Maine Legislature, Portland Press Herald

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2018) In late March, the Missouri Department of Agriculture hosted a public hearing to discuss a proposed emergency rule restricting the sale and use of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D – which are known for their ability to drift off-site and damage sensitive crops. The emergency rule was introduced to prevent off-label use of specific dicamba or 2,4-D products. Thus far, dicamba is responsible for damaging approximately 325,000 acres of soybeans in the state last year.

The proposed rule will stop sales of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D between April 15 and October 1 in Missouri. The department’s goal is to prevent off-label pesticides from drifting onto neighboring property and damaging other crops. According to the department, if it chooses to pursue an emergency rule, it could become effective as soon as April 1, 2018, and expire 180 days later. The rule also requires registrants to provide a sales record by April 30 for each pesticide sold between October 1 and April 15. A proposed rule will be filed at the same time as an emergency rule to initiate the formal rulemaking process.

The draft rule language reads as follows:

1. Pesticides that meet the conditions of this section are considered restricted use pesticides in Missouri and are only allowed to be sold or held for sale in the state from Oct. 1 of each year through April 15 of the following year.
   • Any pesticide that contains any dicamba active ingredient concentration greater than or equal to 6.5%, except if the pesticide:
     1. Contains any other broadleaf herbicide ingredient as an active ingredient; and/or
     2. Is labeled solely for use on non-agricultural use sites.
   • Any pesticide that contains any 2,4-D active ingredient concentration greater than or equal to 12%, except if the pesticide:
     1. Contains any other broadleaf herbicide ingredient as an active ingredient; 
     2. Is labeled solely for use on non-agricultural use sites; and/or
     3. Is labeled for in-crop post-emergence use in 2,4-D tolerant soybeans and cotton.
        
2. By April 30 of each year, registrants will provide to the director a report of sales for each pesticide that meets the conditions of the previous subsection sold between Oct. 1 and April 15. Each report will include:
   • Complete pesticide trade name, United States EPA registration number, and quantity sold reported by container size; and
   • Business name and address for each distributor or retail outlet to whom the pesticides were sold.

In January, Arkansas prohibited the use of dicamba in agriculture from April 16 to October 31, 2018, following a vote by the state’s Legislative Council. This followed a vote last year to continue a temporary ban on dicamba into 2018. Dicamba maker, Monsanto, sued the state to keep their drift-prone product on the market despite a lengthy process of evaluation and public comment that led to the prohibition on dicamba during the growing season on Arkansas farms. However, it lost its bid to halt a statewide ban on the use of its specialty dicamba herbicide in Arkansas.

Dicamba is an herbicide originally registered for use in 1967 to control broadleaf weeds. The chemical is notoriously known to drift off-site large distances after application, but Monsanto (with its XTEND herbicide) as well as the companies BASF (Engenia herbicide) and DowDupont (FeXapan herbicide), attempted to produce formulations that did not volatilize as much as older formulations. However, damage reports did not slow, and research by weed scientists found that the new product does volatize enough to cause drift damage.

The new dicamba products were hastened by the increasing failure of another herbicide, glyphosate, to control herbicide-tolerant weeds in fields of genetically engineered (GE) crops. Weed resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready GE crops led the company to reach for older, more toxic chemicals to incorporate into their new line of GE cropping systems. The company released new seeds developed to tolerate dicamba, however, it did so without a companion herbicide it was also developing, which was purported to present fewer issues with drift. Many believed the source of early reports of drift and damaged fields stemmed from farmers using older, off-label versions of dicamba on new GE seeds. The company eventually released its companion herbicide “Xtend,” a combination of glyphosate and dicamba, but reports of crop damage from drift continued. Hundreds of complaints of dicamba damage have been filed by Arkansas and Missouri, with hundreds of thousands of acres and soybean damage reported.

With predictions that over 40 million acres will be planted with dicamba-tolerant soy in 2018, action by other states to restrict the use of dicamba is needed now. Restrictions are in place or being considered in a number of states, including North Dakota, and Minnesota. If you are concerned about the use of dicamba-based herbicides in agricultural areas where you live, contact your state department of agriculture and voice your concerns. Find their contact information through Beyond Pesticides’ state pages. For more information about the hazardous associated with GE agriculture, see our program page on genetic engineering.

Source: KBIA

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2018) Humans’ unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, worldwide, has reached critical proportions, threatening the ability of an estimated 3.2 billion people to have food and water security, according to a new international study. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services report (IPBES) unearths the crisis faced by two-fifths of the world’s population due to the worsening of land degradation, declining species biodiversity, and the intensification of climate change. While the report presents a bleak picture of how humans have substantially degraded the natural resources essential to survival, it also offers some hope by identifying the changes could be adopted by governments with a political will. Publication of the IPBES comes with a stern warning from the report’s Chair, Robert Watson, PhD, who cautions that “the time for action was yesterday or the day before.”

The extensively peer-reviewed report, conducted by 100 experts from 45 countries, represents a compilation of four regional assessments in the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Africa, and Europe and Central Asia. It is intended to provide policy makers with “the best available evidence” to make important decisions about corrective actions they can take to avoid, reduce, and even reverse land degradation and its impacts. In addition to detailing the root causes of biodiversity losses and ecosystem damages, it also examines the social, cultural, political, and economic influences that can affect long-lasting change. Central to the report is a strong and often repeated message that the window of opportunity for reversing land degradation and its impacts is closing. Dr. Watson warns that, “We must act to halt and reverse the unsustainable use of nature – or risk not only the future we want, but even the lives we currently lead.”

Heightened pesticide use has also adversely affected species diversity of both target and non-target species. It has also adversely impacted food and water security. The organophosphate insecticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species and adversely modify their critical habitats, according to a  December 2017 Biological Opinion of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The opinion followed an ecological assessment that relied upon multiple lines of evidence to determine effects to species and their designated habitats.

Excessive synthetic fertilizer applications in chemical-intensive agriculture is the leading cause of the eutrophication of water bodies. Earlier this year, researchers at the University of California Davis published a study in Science Advances with the finding that regulators in the state drastically underestimate chemical-intensive agriculture’s contribution to nitrogen oxide (NOx) caused air pollution, acid rain, and respiratory illness in the state. While NO_x  pollution is usually associated with energy production and vehicle emissions, fertilizer use on crop fields is contributing to significant air pollution problems. Advocates have said that the study is an urgent call for farmers to eliminate dependency on soluble, synthetic, nitrogen-based fertilizers and adopt the use of insoluble soil amendments that support soil biology that provide plants with nutrients. The well-documented “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico provides a case in point, where the large influx of nitrogen run-off from agriculture has stimulated the production of harmful algae and created a low oxygen environment bereft of marine life. According to IPBES report projections, pesticide and fertilizer use will double by 2050, based on current use patterns and the spiraling demands for food, biofuels, and more meat-based diets. Other adverse impacts of agricultural production systems on the natural environment include decreases soil fertility, acidification, salinization and waterlogging, all of which impinge upon food production yields.

Concrete solutions offered in the report include: halting agriculture expansion into native habitats, improving soil health, conservation agriculture, shifts toward integrated crop, livestock, and forestry agriculture, more plant-based foods, and food waste reduction.

Land degradation is defined in the IPBES as “the many human-caused processes that drive the decline or loss in biodiversity, ecosystem functions or ecosystem services in any terrestrial and associated aquatic ecosystems.” Chief among the cultural drivers of land degradation is the high consumption lifestyles of people living in advanced industrialized countries, the growing consumption in emerging economies, and increasing population growth. All of these behaviors cause land degradation through natural resource and mineral extraction and by fueling agricultural and urban sprawl. Such activities have left less than 25% of the Earth’s surface free from human intervention, mostly in deserts, tundra, mountains, and polar-regions.

The IPBES report tells the somber story of how natural resource exploitation is rapidly accelerating around the world and how and why the rate of species decline varies considerably among regions. The Americas, for example, is home to an estimated 40% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Yet the region, with only 13% of the world’s population, exploits natural resources at twice the global average. And, if the world continues its current fast pace of exploitation without any major course corrections, IPBES estimates that global biodiversity could decline by another 10% by 2050.

Biodiversity has been most strongly affected by agriculture, followed by forestry, infrastructure development, urban encroachment and climate change. The resultant reduction and elimination in the suitability of habitats is the major cause of biodiversity losses. IPBES identified a nearly 40 percent decline in the average population size of wild terrestrial vertebrate species and an 81 percent decline in freshwater vertebrate species between 1970 and 2012. UN Administrator of the Development Program, Achim Steiner, argues that “Biodiversity and the ecosystem services its supports are not only the foundation for life on Earth, but critical to the livelihoods and well-being of people everywhere.”

Agricultural production contributes 10-20 percent of all human-induced global greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation contributes about 10 percent. Land degradation combined with climate change is expected to reduce crop yields by an average of 10 percent, but that figure could reach up to 50 percent by 2050. The release of previously stored carbon in soils represents another significant source of carbon dioxide emissions. An estimated 4.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide was released into the environment between 2000 and 2009. If that trend continues in the Americas, climate change will become the primary cause of biodiversity loss.

Authors of the IPBES report have dubbed its findings “a wake-up call for all of us.” It will also undoubtedly serve that function for the 198 parties to the Convention on Biodiversity who will be attending the upcoming meeting in Egypt in November of this year. Aided by conclusions drawn from the report, agreements will be made on targets for improving biodiversity and strengthening compliance with the treaty. While the U.S. is a party to the Convention, it is not a signatory, which means that it is not legally bound by treaty provisions. You can do your part to change that by contacting your U.S. House Representative and Senators and urging them to call for a vote in Congress to support the U.S. becoming a signatory to the Convention. This is an important first step for the U.S. to join hands with the global community and to work jointly to develop and implement solutions to the combat the biodiversity crisis.

Agricultural Sources:  IPBES media release; The Guardian; EcoWatch

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2018) The comment period closes Wednesday, April 4 at 11:59 pm for the Spring 2018 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Meeting.

Decisions governing the substances allowed in organic food production are subject to public input twice a year. Public participation in this process is critical to the quality of the decisions and meeting both consumer and farmer expectations. In this context, Beyond Pesticides analyzes the proposals before the NOSB, shares its analysis and comments with the public, and urges people to engage the process and make their views known to decision makers. Details are provided below.

In addition to the other priorities in our previous alert (preventing fraud in organic, removing incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic crop production, and the use of bisphenol A [BPA] and other chemicals in organic packaging), we focus attention here on some genetic engineering (GE) issues, contaminated inputs, and “inert” ingredients.

New to Regulations.gov? See our two-minute tutorial.

Comment now!

Beyond Pesticides provides you with our positions, which you can use as the basis for your comments. If you have limited time, you can use the sample comments on priority issues, below. If you have more time, please use the information on our website to develop your own comments. If you paste our comments into regulations.gov, please first put a personal note of concern in order to reflect the importance of these issues to you as an organic consumer, farmer, or other concerned party.

Some major issues at the Spring NOSB meeting are:

Non-GMO Organic Seed Integrity (Seed Purity from GMOs)
The issue of protecting the genetic integrity of seed grown on organic land is related to two others that are not on the agenda –strengthening and clarifying the requirements for the use of organic seed, and excluded methods terminology. Addressing these two issues adequately would help to ensure that the presence of plants growing from GE seeds is greatly reduced on organic farms.

The issue of protecting the genetic integrity of seed grown on organic land is concerned with those instances when organic producers plant nonorganic seed, so any efforts to strengthen the requirements for organic seed would tend to eliminate the problem. Strengthening and clarifying the requirements for the use of organic seed should remain on the agenda to eliminate inconsistencies in the enforcement of the National Organic Program’s (NOP’s) broad exemption that allows the use of conventionally produced seed in certified organic. A rule change to the seed practice standard is needed to require a demonstrable improvement over time until 100% organic seed use is achieved.

Excluded methods terminology should be maintained on the NOSB agenda to keep up with a fast-moving biotechnology industry. Organic regulations prohibit the use of genetic engineering, but the NOP needs to define terms in order to ensure that those regulations are enforceable.

Efforts to quantify the extent of GE contamination and provide transparency in GE content of non-organic seeds should not further burden organic growers.

Contaminated Inputs
It is important for the NOSB to maintain a focus on the problem of contaminated inputs, which threatens the quality of organic products and soil on organic farms. However, the NOSB last addressed the issue in a report in Spring 2015. The report offered an approach for addressing this complex issue through examining feedstocks and pathways. We support the approach in that report. In the intervening three years, the NOSB has not made progress, but another source of contamination has risen in importance — use of water contaminated by oil and gas production. If “organic” is to maintain its meaning, we must prevent the unintended contamination that can occur when organic matter is recycled from off-farm sources, or when outside forces contaminate water supplies.

“Inert” Ingredients
“Inert” ingredients frequently comprise as much as 99% of pesticide products. So-called “inert” ingredients are not inert, and are not disclosed to users or others who may be exposed. Given NOSB scrutiny of active ingredients, “inert” ingredients may be the most hazardous ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production. We urge the NOSB to insist that NOP move forward quickly with implementation of the NOSB recommendations on “inert” ingredients. Allowing the current lack of movement to persist raises serious compliance issues and threatens the integrity of the USDA organic label.

Submit your comments at Regulations.gov!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2018) While conventional farming practices rely primarily on new sources of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer to grow crops, organic agriculture conserves nitrogen by using recycled sources, as detailed by new research published by the University of Virginia (UVA) and The Organic Center. Of concern is ‘reactive nitrogen,’ which is nitrogen in a form that will eventually be used by plants (ex. nitrous oxide (N₂O), nitrate (NO₃^–), nitrite (NO₂^–), ammonia (NH₃), and ammonium (NH₄⁺)), rather than benign, non-reactive nitrogen in the form of N_2.  “This research is significant and timely because its findings show that many common organic farming practices—like composting and the use of manure fertilization in place of synthetic fertilizers—can recycle reactive nitrogen that is already in the global system rather than introducing new reactive nitrogen into the environment, and thus have a much smaller environmental impact,” said Jessica Shade, PhD of The Organic Center.

Earlier this year, researchers at the University of California Davis published a study in Science Advances with the finding that regulators in the state drastically underestimate chemical-intensive agriculture’s contribution to nitrogen oxide (NOx) caused air pollution, acid rain, and respiratory illness in the state. While NO_x  pollution is usually associated with energy production and vehicle emissions, fertilizer use on crop fields is contributing to significant air pollution problems. Advocates have said that the study is an urgent call for farmers to eliminate dependency on soluble, synthetic, nitrogen-based fertilizers and adopt the use of insoluble soil amendments that support soil biology that provide plants with nutrients.

Nitrogen fertilizer is associated with a range of human health and environmental problems. Much of the fertilizer that is not taken up by plants is either released into the atmosphere in its reactive form, where it can cause air pollution, or makes its way into waterways, where it can result in toxic algae blooms. In 2016, Florida’s lake Okeechobee, the largest in the state, experienced an algae bloom that resulted in the Governor declaring an environmental state of emergency. In 2014, a bloom of toxic cyanobacteria, a blue-green algae, contaminated lake Erie so significantly that it resulted in a “do not drink, do not boil” water crisis in the City of Toledo, Ohio. According to a report published in February 2018, regulators are likely drastically underestimating the amount that nitrogen gasses released from fertilized fields contribute to air pollution.

The health risks of nitrogen pollution are greater than “blue-baby syndrome.” A 2016 found that nitrate that made its way into drinking water was associated with birth defects, cancers, and thyroid problems.

The Organic Center, UVA study found that 60 to 100 percent of inputs on conventional farms came from new sources of reactive nitrogen fertilizer. This is synthetic fertilizer, created by an industrial process known as Haber-Bosch, wherein benign nitrogen from the air is converted into ammonia. This form of nitrogen is immediately available to plants.

On the other hand, organic farms were found to utilize nitrogen primarily from recycled sources, such as compost and manure. This accounts for between 80 and 95 percent of nitrogen used in organic agriculture, with the only new nitrogen formed being that which is produced by nitrogen-fixing bacteria on the roots of legumes and cover crops. Overall, researchers found that organic practices resulted in 64% less new nitrogen into the environment.

The Organic Center’s Tracy Misiewicz, PhD notes, “The total number of nitrogen atoms on Earth remains constant, so we need to understand what proportion of the total is present in a polluting form vs. a non-polluting form. This research shows that rather than converting benign nitrogen into polluting nitrogen, organic farming practices overwhelmingly recycle reactive nitrogen instead of introducing new reactive nitrogen into our environment.”

Moreover, the recycled sources of nitrogen used on organic farms usually require microbial action in order to convert nitrogen into a plant available form. This ensures that nitrogen added to these fields stays in place longer, rather than running off into local waterways or emitting polluted forms into the atmosphere.

These data mean that 93% of conventional food consumed comes from newly created nitrogen sources, while only 33% of organic nitrogen came from new sources.

Organic systems never employ the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers produced via the Haber-Bosch process. Synthetic fertilizers are prohibited under the Organic Foods Production Act, the statute that establishes organic certification and the USDA organic food label. Concerned consumers can help support an environmentally stable, less polluted food production system by purchasing organic food whenever possible. Individuals can also get involved by passing policies that stop the use of synthetic inputs in their community, and eliminate the use of synthetic fertilizers on their own property by referring to Beyond Pesticides’ List of Organic Compatible Fertilizer Products.  Follow the lead of communities like Dover, NH, which recently restricted both synthetic pesticide and fertilizer inputs. Contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450, for resources to create change.

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

Source: The Organic Center

(Beyond Pesticides, March 29, 2018) Rising use of antibacterials like nanosilver in textiles and other consumer goods is leading scientists to consider methods to filter out these materials before they pollute the environment. As detailed by research published in Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, experts at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, are developing a process to filter out these toxic materials from our washing machines. While preventing downstream waste is laudable, it misses the fundamental question whether nanosilver and other antibacterials need to be added to consumer clothing in the first place.

Nanosilver is antimicrobial nanoparticle (typically defined as a particle between 1-100 nanometers) regulated as a pesticide that is added to consumer goods such as textiles, cosmetics, disinfectants, toys and other household items in attempts to kill bacteria or reduce odor. See the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies for an extensive listing of products containing nanoparticles on the market. Nanosilver, which makes up roughly 25% of nanomaterials used in the consumer market, is a particularly concerning nanoparticle given past research on its risks to health and the environment.

Studies have found that, when impregnated into textiles like sportswear, nanosilver does not just wash out in the washing machine, it can also seep into a person’s sweat and end up being absorbed into the skin. The size of nanosilver means that it can easily pass into the body’s blood and lymph system, and circulate through sensitive areas such as the brain, liver, and heart.  Toxicity studies have associated the material with damage to human cells from the skin, liver, lung, brain, and vascular and reproductive systems. Mouse models revealed negative effects on a number of vital organs, including the brain.

Nanosilver is not easily filtered by modern wastewater treatment plants. To reduce the amount of nanosilver entering the environment, researchers tested various methods to capture the material in one’s washing machine before it entered the wastewater stream. It was determined that an ion-exchange process was most effective. In this case, negatively charged sulfur particles were used to attract positively charged nanosilver particles. The process was able to recover between 20 to 99% nanosilver, but was highly dependent on pH and the number of calcium ions present in the water used for washing. Researchers hope that this method could lead to individualized pre-treatment of wastewater with specific technologies based on need. In an article in Phys.org, the authors ask, “If wastewater from laundromats contains different contaminants than wastewater from restaurants, why treat them the same way?”

The method provides a potential route to limit the influx of toxic silver in the environment. Given that downstream effects of nanosilver have been linked to earthworm toxicity, impacts to fish, and the disruption of microbial ecosystems, this method may be of intermediate necessity. However, in the long term, consumers should question the benefit of socks and athletic wear that smells a bit less, but causes potential health impacts to one’s self and the environment.

Last year, health and consumer groups won a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for conditionally registering a nanosilver product based on the ‘potential’ for it to be in the public interest. EPA reasoned that if all conventional silver pesticide products switched to nanosilver and no new companies started used nanosilver, then the overall amount of toxic silver released into the environment would decline. However, the court determined that ‘potential’ did not rise to the level of being in the public interest as required under law. It took a prior 2015 lawsuit by Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety for the agency to begin regulating these novel materials as pesticides.

At the present time, these chemicals remain a little known, emerging threat to our health, baked in to our clothing and other consumer products. New methods to filter these materials out of our wastewater are still in development, leaving ecosystems at continued risk.

For more information on the dangers nanosilver pesticides pose to our health and environment, see Beyond Pesticides’ antibacterials webpage. Find a list of nanosilver products to avoid through the Center for Food Safety’s list, or browse the ever-growing list of all nanomaterials in consumer goods at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

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

Source: Phys.org, Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering

(Beyond Pesticides, March 28, 2018) The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Healthcare Facilities Project, spearheaded by the Maryland Pesticide Education Network (MPEN) and Beyond Pesticides, are marking the Project’s 10th anniversary to reduce healthcare facilities’ pesticide use and impact, while maintaining a high level of pest management. Funded by Maryland-based foundations, the IPM in Healthcare Facilities Project services are pro bono.

Maryland healthcare facilities strive to provide a high level of pest management to protect the compromised health of the at-risk people they serve, however often and unknowingly, many healthcare facilities respond to pest problems by having their contracted pest management vendors apply toxic pesticides as a first line of defense.

These chemicals are often linked to the very issues for which patients are being treated. Pesticides can cause acute life-threatening reactions and linked to long-term impacts including cancer, asthma, Parkinson’s’ disease, developmental, reproductive and neurological impacts and immune dysfunction issues.

The IPM staff, in collaboration with fourteen Maryland facilities, have worked diligently to reduce facilities’ pesticide use and impact, while maintaining a high level of pest management. Project staff educate facilities’ management and technicians about the dangers of patient pesticide exposure and the benefits of implementing an IPM program.

An IPM program focuses on non-chemical strategies to address conditions that contribute to attracting and harboring pests, including:

• exclusion techniques
• identifying sanitation controls
• eliminating attractants
• changing staff practices.

Least-toxic pesticides are only used as a last resort.

One exemplary Maryland facility is Springfield Hospital Center, Sykesville, Maryland. The staff has modeled a sustained and pesticide-free facility and campus for 10 years embracing defined IPM based on non-chemical pest prevention.

Gina Navarro, Project Director said, “Given the serious consequences related to toxic pesticide exposures, healthcare industry leaders must take necessary precautions to protect patients and workers from pests and pesticides. When a facility adopts a defined IPM policy that serves to guide a facility over time, despite changes in management and vendors, they can ensure a sustainable program. Without an official policy, changes in management and contracted pest management vendors can lead to backtracking to a ‘see ’em, spray ’em’ approach that puts patients at risk.”

Noted by the US EPA’s Pesticide Stewardship Program (PESP), “The [Maryland] IPM in Healthcare Facilities Project has paved the way for reducing risks from pests and pesticides throughout sensitive environments and continues to spread a new culture of sustainable pest management… Springfield Hospital Center has an exceptional IPM policy that clearly outlines a commitment to IPM.” (fall 2013 PESP newsletter)

“IPM is achievable,” said Jeffery Belt, Environmental Services Director at Springfield. “Get everyone you need on your team early and involved. Springfield knows that spending thousands of dollars on pest control programs does not work and is not cost-effective. We work with our staff to understand the importance of sanitation and building maintenance in preventing pest problems.”

While the project’s participating facilities agree that prioritized IPM is critical for managing pests and protecting patients, and while most have achieved high standards of IPM implementation, some facility changes in staff or vendors has led to periodic reversion to reliance on pesticides. The IPM Project wants to assist these facilities to get on track to protect against unnecessary exposure to harmful pesticides.

“Our Project is about preventative health,” says Co-Founder, Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides. “For an industry whose foundation is built on ‘First, Do No Harm,’ more healthcare facilities should practice defined/prioritized IPM.”

Learn about the IPM in Healthcare Facilities Project.

Gina Navarro,
Maryland Pesticide Education Network
443-465-4845,
[email protected].

Ruth Berlin, Executive Director
Maryland Pesticide Education Network
410-849-3909, ex. 1 (office)
410-693-7319 (mobile)
[email protected]

Jay Feldman, Executive Director
Beyond Pesticides
202-543-5450 (office)
[email protected]

(Beyond Pesticides, March 27, 2018) In a major win for farmworker and health groups, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled last Wednesday the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) illegally delayed implementation of key pesticide rules that in part prevent minors from working with the most dangerous pesticides. The rule revised rules mandate pesticide applicators be at least 18 years old. According to the EPA, there are about one million certified applicators nationwide. Before delaying implementation, the agency said the revised rule could prevent some 1,000 acute poisonings every year.

In addition to requiring applicators to be at least 18-years-old, the revised 2017 Certification of Pesticide Applicators (CPA) rule also improves the quality of training materials and says certified pesticide applicators must be able to read and understand the instructions. The main purpose of the CPA rule is to protect workers and the public from poisonings, by ensuring that those who handle the most dangerous pesticides are properly trained and certified.

“We commend the court for recognizing that this important pesticide safeguard is needed to prevent injury to farmworkers and the public,” said Stacey Geis, Earthjustice managing attorney. “This ruling puts EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on notice that the courts are going to be scrutinizing any rule that reduces health protections for farmworkers.”

Just a few days ago EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt received a letter from twenty-eight U.S. Senators urging the preservation of rules that would protect farmworkers and disallow minors to handle highly toxic pesticides. In their letter, the Senators stress the impact of any potential changes, noting “the lives of children and families across the country at stake.”

After years of reviews, EPA published the revised CPA Rule in the last days of the Obama Administration, updating for the first time in years how applicators of restricted use pesticides, or RUPs, are certified. RUPs are the most toxic and dangerous pesticides on the market and can cause serious injury or death if they are improperly handled. But the then incoming Trump Administration quickly and quietly delayed the rule, while providing the public only four days to comment on the delay.

The move prompted health and farmworker organizations represented by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice to file suit on behalf of Farmworker Association of Florida, United Farm Workers, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Pesticide Action Network North America. “Our case was clear. There is no justification for delaying common-sense measures to prevent pesticide poisonings and deaths,” said Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational and environmental health at Farmworker Justice. “EPA’s blatant violation of the law jeopardizes public health.”

In its ruling, the court noted that before the delay, EPA made numerous findings of the inadequacy of the old regulations as they relate to RUPs, as well as the threat RUPs posed to people, particularly farmworkers. The judge also sent a strong message to the EPA by rejecting all the agency’s delays for failing to properly notify the public, and allow for comments. The court declared the original March 6, 2017, date as the effective date, making its ruling effective immediately. The ruling comes three months after the EPA said it wants to revise crucial parts of the CPA rule, and its sister set of guidelines, the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard. It’s still unclear when the EPA will open the proposed changes for public comments.

Without proper enforcement and oversight, applicators, their clients, and the environment will be at risk. While striving to minimize adverse impact from pesticide use, stricter applicator standards are only one part of the solution. Instead of delaying important applicator standards, EPA must reduce the overall approval, sale, and use of pesticides that are proven to be hazardous to human and environmental health, and for which there are safer alternatives, keeping with its mandate that these products pose no unreasonable adverse effects on people and the environment.

Congressional pushback is critical in stopping an agenda that has aimed to eliminate farmworker protections, slash EPA staff, and keep highly toxic pesticides with known health risks on the market. Thank you to those that have already asked their Congressmembers to protect AWPS and CPA. Continue to keep the pressure up by sending a letter to your Congressional delegation today.

Source: PANNA News Release

(Beyond Pesticides, March 26, 2018) Tell your state AG to join the investigation of the merger of Bayer-Monsanto, the manufacturer of genetically engineered seeds tolerant of its herbicide glyphosate (aka Roundup®), and Bayer, the manufacturer of neonicotinoid insecticides responsible for pollinator declines, including imidacloprid and clothianidin. The giant seed and pesticide company that would be created by this merger would be a disaster for pollinators, people, and the environment.

Farmers overwhelmingly think this mega-merger is a bad idea –a new survey and white paper were released that demonstrate widespread opposition of farmers to this merger. According to the poll, which was conducted by a coalition of farm organizations, 93 percent of farmers surveyed oppose it. More than one million Americans have called on the Department of Justice to stop it. Investigations are ongoing in both the EU and the U.S. Your state attorney general could play a key role in this fight by joining the investigation.

Tell your state AG to join the investigation of the Bayer-Monsanto Merger!

If this merger goes through, the new company would be the world’s largest vegetable seed company. It would control seeds for many of the crops we eat regularly — including broccoli, carrots, and onions.

It would also be the largest manufacturer and seller of herbicides. The merger threatens the development of a sustainable and just food system. It will hurt independent family farmers and rural economies, and will make it even more difficult for farmers to reject the chemical- intensive agricultural system that Bayer and Monsanto promote. In short, we would be giving a single corporation unprecedented control of our food supply. We can’t let the future of our food system be handed over to Bayer and Monsanto.

Your state Attorney General has the power to launch a public joint investigation of the proposed merger, and is more likely to do so if you speak up.

Tell your state Attorney General to join the investigation and oppose this toxic mega-merger NOW!
This merger is happening as part of a massive wave of consolidation in our food system. Dow and DuPont merged. So did ChemChina and Syngenta.

If Bayer and Monsanto merge, only four companies will control the entire market for seeds and pesticides, turning our food system over to mega-corporations that have enormous political power and control over prices, quality, and options for farmers and consumers.
Bayer and Monsanto are trying to rush this deal through. Bayer has even started to say it will sell off some of its business to win approval from the Department of Justice and state attorneys general, but this won’t solve the problem.

ACT NOW! Tell your state attorney general to say NO to this giant pesticide merger and stand up for consumers, farmers, workers, and the environment.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 23, 2018) French scientists and ornithologists say parts of the country’s forests, streams, and bucolic landscapes could be completely devoid of birdsong this year, as the results of two recent studies show staggering declines in bird populations throughout the nation linked to the intensification of agricultural practices and pesticide use. The advent of so many significant wildlife declines at the same time –now recognized in birds, but also seen in pollinators and insect populations–is leading many to wonder whether the modern world has forgotten the warnings of Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring back in 1962.

“We’ve lost a quarter of skylarks in 15 years. It’s huge, it’s really, really huge. If this was the human population, it would be a major thing,” said Benoit Fontaine, PhD, of France’s National Museum of Natural History and co-author of one of the new studies to The Guardian. “We are turning our farmland into a desert. We are losing everything and we need that nature, that biodiversity – the agriculture needs pollinators and the soil fauna. Without that, ultimately, we will die.”

The French National Museum of Natural History and the National Centre for Scientific Research each conducted an investigation into country’s bird populations, with the former studying nationwide declines, and the latter focusing in on agricultural land in the French countryside. While certain species like the wood pigeon, blackbirds, and chaffinches, are growing in abundance on a national scale, they are being decimated in rural areas.

Overall, the data show 30% declines in bird populations on average during the last 15 years, with certain species doing particularly poorly.  Seven in ten meadow pipits have been lost, as well as eight in ten partridges. Records find that the decline deepened since 2008/2009, when a European policy that required a certain amount of a farm field be left fallow each year was revoked. Scientists also correlate the declines to the widespread use of systemic, persistent, neonicotinoid insecticides.

As Rachael Carson wrote in Silent Spring, “In nature nothing exists alone.” Birds that are not directly harmed by pesticide exposure can still be stressed and killed by the disruption of ecological balance. A study published in October of last year found 75% of insect abundance has been lost in European nature preserves over the past 30 years. “All birds are dependent on insects in one way or another,” said Dr. Fontaine to The Guardian. “Even granivorous birds feed their chicks insects and birds of prey eat birds that eat insects. If you lose 80% of what you eat you cannot sustain a stable population.” Like pollinators, pesticide use is the common denominator in these declines. It also happens to be the most straightforward issue to address.

In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson challenged the modern world to slough off the poisons we’ve put down on the Earth in favor of an approach that ensures ecological stability. “We stand now where two roads diverge,” she wrote. “But unlike the roads in Robert Frost’s familiar poem, they are not equally fair. The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road — the one less traveled by — offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of the earth.”

With researchers indicating that the results of this study show the natural world trending towards catastrophe, it appears that we may again be at a crossroads. To address the issue, advocates call for the support of food production systems that protect wildlife and the wider environment, while maintaining yields.

Dr. Fontaine of the French National Museum summed up the predicament for the farming community, indicating to The Guardian that farming and wildlife preservation are not mutually exclusive. “Farmers are really willing to do that,” he said. “They live with a system which is based on large firms that make pesticides and they have to cope with that. They are not the bad guys. The problem is not agriculture, but the solution is really the farmers.”

Attempts to institute practices that protect the natural world are viewed as a threat to profit margins by large agrichemical firms. Studies that find problems with the chemicals a company produces have been attacked, and there have been numerous instances where pliable scientists, experts, and reporters are found to excuse chemical company products from fault, muddle the research, and head off policymaking that would adequately address concerns.

The European Union is set to vote as soon as this month on a proposal that would ban all outdoor uses of the neonicotinoid chemical class, identified by thousands of independent scientific studies to be the key factor behind declines in insect pollinators, and in the current research to be a proximate cause of bird declines.  In the U.S., residents can help build support for a similar measure that would suspend these chemicals unless eventually found to be safe for pollinator populations. Act now, and urge your member of Congress to join in support, so that we may finally begin to move down the path that avoids disaster and preserves life on earth.

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

Source: National Centre for Scientific Research (French – Google Translate Link), The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, March 22, 2018) Last week Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt received a letter from twenty-eight U.S. Senators urging the preservation of rules that would protect farmworkers and disallow minors to handle highly toxic pesticides. At issue are two proposals from Administrator Scott Pruitt’s EPA that would roll back Agricultural Worker Protection Standards (AWPS) and the Certification of Pesticide Applicators (CPA) rules put in place during the Obama Administration. In their letter, the Senators stress the impact of any potential changes, noting “the lives of children and families across the country at stake.”

During the Obama era, EPA completed rulemaking that revised AWPS for the first time in over 20 years. Key components expanded training, prohibited children under 18 from applying highly toxic restricted use pesticides, created new no-entry application-exclusion zones, improved record keeping, provided farmworkers a designated representative to request pesticide records, and other safety improvements. The final rules put in place long-overdue protections, but still represented a compromise for workers and farmworker advocates. At the time the rules were released, advocacy organization Farmworker Justice released a statement noting, “While we are disappointed that the final rule does not include some significant safety measures, we will continue to work with our community partners to advocate for greater worker protections at EPA and at the state and local levels.”

After the AWPS rules were updated, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy finalized similar rules under a separate CPA rule, which also improved training requirements for pesticide applicators and prohibited minors from applying restricted use pesticides under most circumstances. Despite the arduous process led to the original compromise, Administrator Pruitt took action in mid-May to delay the implementation of CPA, and was subsequently sued by farmworker and health organizations shortly after.

Now, Administrator Pruitt’s EPA announced its intent to revise segments of both AWPS and CPA, with age requirements, farmworker designated representatives, and no-entry application-exclusion zones under specific scrutiny.

As Huffington Post reports, disclosure records indicate that the American Farm Bureau lobbied EPA to take similar actions. General perception behind the industry’s motivation to reduce the age limit to handle highly toxic pesticides is that minors can be paid less money to apply these chemicals. As the Senators write, “These rules were revised to prevent farmworker poisonings and in the aftermath of pesticide misuse that led to serious harm for hundreds of homeowners and their families, and resulted in the tragic deaths of children.”

Likewise, removing the ability for a farmworker to designate a representative to receive information after he or she was poisoned is presumed to be the agricultural industry’s attempt to limit the ability for farmworkers to sue. “The designated representative provision is critically important because there are many reasons why a worker may be unable to access information about the chemicals they are exposed to,” the Senators write. “This commonsense safeguard has been denied to farmworkers while workers in other industries have had these protections for decades.”

Eliminating the application exclusion zone would do away with important protections that extend out from farm fields to agricultural communities. “The application exclusion zone merely requires the commonsense precaution that if someone is applying pesticides and sees workers or other people around the equipment, they should try to avoid spraying them by suspending the application and resuming after a non-trained and unprotected person leaves the area,” the Senators write in their letter. This is important because EPA does not account for bystander exposure as part of its risk assessment for pesticides, and simply assumes that exposure will not happen.

Congressional pushback is critical in stopping an agenda that has aimed to eliminate farmworker protections, slash EPA staff, and keep highly toxic pesticides with known health risks on the market. Thank you to those that have already asked their Congressmembers to protect AWPS and CPA. Continue to keep the pressure up by sending a letter to your Congressional delegation today.

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

Source: Huffington Post, SCRIBD Senatorial Document

(Beyond Pesticides, March 21, 2018) According to a new study published this month in Environment Health, women with high levels of glyphosate in their bodies are more likely to have shorter pregnancies. Shorter pregnancies can lead to children with reduced learning and brain development. This is the first study to suggest that exposures to glyphosate can influence the long-term well-being of children.

The study, Glyphosate exposure in pregnancy and shortened gestational length: a prospective Indiana birth cohort study, obtained both urine and drinking water samples from 71 women with pregnancies living in Central Indiana while they received routine prenatal care, and analysed the relationships of glyphosate levels in mother’s urine with fetal growth indicators and gestational length. The researchers found that more than 90 percent of pregnant women had detectable levels of glyphosate where higher glyphosate levels were significantly correlated with shortened gestational lengths, even though the drinking water samples had little to no detectable levels of glyphosate. Women living in rural areas were found to have higher glyphosate levels.

The authors note their study is significant because it is the first U.S. study designed specifically to measure prenatal glyphosate exposure in pregnant women to determine its association with adverse fetal developmental risk. Lead author, Shahid Parvez, Ph.D., an assistant professor and researcher at the Indiana University Fairbanks School of Public Health, said exposure from foods is the most likely culprit. Dr. Parvez said none of the women studied worked in agriculture. “Even though this study was in Central Indiana, if diet is the route by which everyone is exposed, this is not necessarily a regional issue but a national or global issue,” he said, adding that there was some evidence from a survey of the women that eating organic curbed their glyphosate levels. Dr. Parvez said they suspect that glyphosate may spur oxidative stress in pregnant women, which could lead to shorter pregnancies—this is what he and his team want to look into next. There are limitations to the study in that it has a very small sample size and the women were almost all white. Dr. Parvez said they plan on conducting a similar study on a larger scale with more diversity and from different regions.

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s popular Roundup, has been touted by Monsanto as “safe,” but science is showing it is anything but. In March 2015, IARC found that there was sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental organisms to classify glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). Industry has since challenged IARC’s finding, arguing that it is an outlier as an “overwhelming majority of government regulators and other experts” have found glyphosate is not carcinogenic and have “flatly rejected” IARC’s conclusion. Monsanto has been trying to undermine findings that show its flagship product, glyphosate, is anything other than “safe.” However, its attempts to unduly influence and undermine scientific research and government review of its product has been disclosed widely in the press. In December 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declared that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic, conflicting with IARC’s 2015 classification. Some charge that EPA’s assessment relied heavily on industry studies to arrive at its conclusion, and ignored its own guidelines for assessing cancer risks. Currently, EPA has opened for public comment its most recent health assessment for glyphosate. The comment period ends April 30, 2018.

More than 250 lawsuits are pending against Monsanto in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, brought by people who claim that Roundup exposure caused them or a family member to contract non-Hodgkin lymphoma — a cancer that originates in the lymphatic system, which comprises much of the body’s immune system, and can then spread throughout the body — and that Monsanto covered up the health risks associated with glyphosate. The first trial is set for June 18, 2018, in San Francisco County Superior Court.

Glyphosate is widely used in food production, especially on genetically engineered (GE) crops, and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. It has been linked DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, and some epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In September 2015, a study published in Environmental Health News found that chronic, low-dose exposure to glyphosate leads to adverse effects on liver and kidney health. In January 2017, research was published showing that ultra-low doses of glyphosate formulations fed to rats are linked to an increased likelihood of developing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. A lead author of that study stated that the findings are “very worrying as they demonstrate for the first time a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption over the long-term and a serious disease.”

The herbicide is the most widely used herbicide in the world and as a result is being detected in food and human bodies. Tests have detected glyphosate residues in German beer, at levels higher than allowed in drinking water. Glyphosate residues have been found in bread being sold in the UK. A pilot study conducted by the group Moms Across America in 2014 found that glyphosate may also bioaccumulate in the human body, as revealed by high levels of the chemical in the breast milk of mothers tested. Research from the University of California, San Diego finds that glyphosate residues in the human body increased significantly from the mid-1990s to present. Between 1993 and 1996 average glyphosate residues in urine was recorded to be 0.024 micrograms per liter. By time study participants were tested between 2014-2016, average urinary glyphosate levels rose to 0.314 micrograms per liter, an increase of over 1,200%.

As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate mounts, Beyond Pesticides urges communities around the U.S. to advocate for the elimination of glyphosate and other toxic pesticide use, at least in public spaces. Consumers can have a real impact by talking to neighbors, farmers, and the legislators who make decisions that affect people’s health. As always, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 1.202.543.5450 for assistance, or visit the Beyond Pesticides website. Meanwhile, as the regulatory wrestling continues, the best way to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides is to support organic practices in agriculture and for lawns and landscapes in the community and to purchase organic food.

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

Source: Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, March 20, 2018) Regulations that separate ingredients in pesticide products as either “other/inert” or “active” have no scientific basis, according to a new review of the toxicity of formulated pesticide products published in the journal Frontiers in Public Health. Despite widespread awareness that “other” or “inert” pesticidal ingredients present toxicity concerns, only “active” ingredients undergo a full risk assessment, and pesticide products containing both active and inert ingredients are not tested in formulation before being sold to the public. Using glyphosate and neonicotinoid based products as examples, the study recommends sweeping changes to the way pesticide formulations are regulated in the Western world.

Inert, or other ingredients –not disclosed on pesticide product labels, are often adjuvants that are added to a pesticide formulation to modify the effect of the active ingredient. However, they can also be sold separately and used in agriculture where pesticides are often “tank mixed” on site before application. Adjuvants take many forms, including surfactants, dyes, stabilizers, propellants, emulsifiers, solvents, antifoaming agents, and still other uses. Surfactants, likely the most common adjuvant, are added to a pesticide formulation in order slow the degradation time or improve the penetration of the active ingredient on a target site. Ethoxylated alkylphenols, like POEA, are commonly used surfactants in pesticide formulations. Researchers found that diesel fuel and kerosene are oft-used as antifoaming agents, polyvinyl polymers are used as drift retardants, and octanol and other fatty alcohols are used as solvents to increase the mobility of an active ingredient within a target pest or weed.

While these chemicals can be more toxic than an active ingredient in a pesticide formulation, their designation as “inert” is rooted in old regulations based on old science. Under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), passed in 1947, only chemicals specifically intended to kill pests are considered “active” in a formulation, while others are disregarded. According to researchers, 50 years later, as a result of surveys that found the public considers the term “inert” to mean biologically inactive, EPA did not begin thorough testing of these chemicals. Instead, the agency began using the term “other” to describe adjuvant ingredients.

“Exposure to environmental levels of some of these adjuvant mixtures can affect non-target organisms — and even can cause chronic human disease,” says study co-author Robin Mesnage, PhD to Science Daily. “Despite this, adjuvants are not currently subject to an acceptable daily intake and are not included in the health risk assessment of dietary exposures to pesticide residues.”

Researchers reviewed the literature on the most commonly used pesticide products on the market, those that contain the active ingredient glyphosate, and those with an active ingredient in the neonicotinoid class of chemicals. For glyphosate-based herbicides, researchers found problems with simply identifying what formulation was tested within a given study. Concerningly, many studies indicate that they’re testing glyphosate, when in fact they’re testing a glyphosate-based herbicide like Roundup. According to the review, there are over 750 glyphosate-based herbicides, with a wide range of different adjuvants present in formulation. Some commercial formulations of glyphosate are 1,000 times more toxic than technical grade glyphosate, according to researchers. There are even variations in toxicity depending on the type of inert used. The notorious adjuvant POEA, noted for its demonstrated ability to kill human cells, can differ in toxicity based upon the length of the tallow amine chain and ratio of oxides to tallow amine. Research reviewed indicates that the toxicity of POEA to human cells, based on the tallow amine chain, can differ by a factor of 100 between different formulations. Given that studies have found POEA in farmer fields, the authors warn that it may be entering the food supply undetected.

Similar problems were encountered while reviewing neonicotinoid-based insecticides. Scientists point to issues with organosilicon surfactants used to increase the penetration of the active ingredient into a target insect. These chemicals can comprise 2% of a “tank mix” often used to spray almond orchards that bees honey pollinate. The scientific literature has linked honey bee exposure to organosilicons to acute toxicity, impacts on olfactory learning, and contamination of beeswax and pollen stores. One study, which Beyond Pesticides reported on previously, found that organosilicon surfactants result in a range of negative effects on honey bees, including increased susceptibility to viruses. Although deemed to be one of the “safer” inerts, a small amount (100pM) of organosilicon that was found to kill 60-100% of honey bees, resulted in no effect when the bees were exposed to the same concentration of POEA.

Without testing, there is no ability to determine whether the addition of an adjuvant to a pesticide formulation has increased or decreased its toxicity. One neonicotinoid-based product, Apache 50 WG, was found to be 46.5 times more toxic than its active ingredient on a tested species. Two other products containing the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam as an active ingredient, Calypso  480SC and Actara 240 SC registered toxicity two and three times lower than technical grade thiamethoxam, according to researchers.

Authors of the review conclude that the current pesticide regulatory system is broken and incapable of adequately assessing risk. “Testing of whole pesticide formulations instead of just active ingredients alone would create a precautionary approach, ensuring that the guidance value for the pesticide is valid for the worst-case exposure scenario,” said Dr Mesnage.  Additional recommendations include biomonitoring populations to identify adjuvant body burden, and including inerts in food product testing.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for an alternatives assessment to pesticide regulation. When a pesticide active ingredient, inert ingredient, or its formulation shows indication of adverse effects, an alternatives assessment first asks whether there are viable, less toxic alternatives that could achieve the same goal. If there are, additional resources are focused on that product, and the toxic chemical or formulation is not commercialized or sold to consumers.

A lawsuit launched by Beyond Pesticides and other environmental organizations attempted to force U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require inert ingredient disclosure on a pesticides label. After a petition was sent in 2006, the agency appeared to be gearing up to require listing, but all progress halted soon after. EarthJustice sued EPA for undue delay, but EPA then retracted its intent to move forward. After another lawsuit, a federal judge recently ruled that EPA had no responsibility to complete rulemaking and require listing of inert ingredients. Instead, EPA provided a list of 72 inert ingredients that are no longer in use, with no information on the nearly 300 other “other” ingredients allowed in pesticide formulations by the agency.

For more information on inert ingredients, see Beyond Pesticides’ report delivered to the National Organic Standards Board.

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

Source: ScienceDaily, Frontiers in Public Health.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 19, 20018) Comment by April 4 to Protect Organic Integrity. Organic integrity is under unprecedented attack from the Trump Administration’s Department of Agriculture (USDA), Congress, and those who would like to sell food as “organic” without following the stringent rules established for organic food production and labeling. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), established to represent the organic community in advising USDA on organic practices, will be voting on important issues, and your input is critical to that process. The NOSB meets twice yearly to consider issues including materials used in organic production and oversight of the National Organic Program within USDA.

Submit your comments at Regulations.gov!

Enforcement is a critical component to any standard setting program. Recent reports in the Washington Post have highlighted fraudulent activities by companies selling products as organic. While this activity is certainly deviant, it taints the organic label and, if not dealt with seriously, will become a bigger problem. The NOSB will consider motions at the Spring 2018 meeting that will stop this practice. Your voice is needed to make this happen!

Make your voice heard on this and other issues by submitting comments NOW on what materials and practices are allowed in organic production! An easy way to speak out is to go to the Beyond Pesticides website, find our positions, write your comments (using our summary –feel free to cut-and-paste our comments), and submit your comments on the government website. [For those not familiar with commenting on these critical organic integrity issues, because of the government public comment process, this action requires that you post your comments on the government’s ‘regulations.gov’ website. We have simplified this process through our Keeping Organic Strong webpage.]

Beyond Pesticides provides you with our positions, which you can use as the basis for your comments. Please feel free to develop your own comments or copy and paste ours. If you copy and paste our comments into regulations.gov, please begin your comment with a personal note of concern in order to reflect the importance of these issues to you as an organic consumer, farmer, or other concerned party.

We encourage anyone who feels strongly about any of these issues to claim a three-minute speaking slot at the NOSB webinars on April 17 and 19, 2018 or at the NOSB meeting in Tucson, Arizona on April 25. Registration closes April 4.

Some major issues being considered at the Spring meeting are:

Addressing Fraud in Organic Production: The fraud problem extends to both imported and domestically grown organic food. It is a problem whenever someone portrays as organic a product that does not meet the rigorous organic standards required to use the USDA organic label. Fraud hurts all sectors of the organic community –especially organic producers who follow the letter and spirit of the law and the consumers who depend on the market to provide organic food that meets organic standards. Fraud is a problem when crops that are grown with prohibited inputs, when livestock do not get the required access to pasture, and when organic crops are produced in artificial media.

The topic of inspector qualifications and training, listed separately on the NOSB agenda, is an integral part of fraud prevention. Regulations must be clear, so that they can be enforced. USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP) must have a will to enforce, whether the violator is large or small, foreign or domestic. The task facing the NOSB and NOP is to craft a multi-faceted strategy to prevent organic fraud.

Packaging Substances, including Bisphenol A (BPA): BPA should be eliminated from organic food packaging. At the same time, since some known alternatives to BPA may also present similar problems, the NOSB should approach the issue of food packaging in a comprehensive way. The NOSB’s Handling Subcommittee should ensure that packaging is a priority issue and request a scientific technical review of BPA and its alternatives, so that it can adopt the strongest most comprehensive packaging standard for organic food.

Eliminating Incentives to Convert Native Ecosystems to Organic Cropland: Unfortunately, the legal requirement to avoid the use of prohibited substances for three years before land can be certified organic produces an unintended incentive to convert important native habitat to organic farms. To protect native lands, the NOSB should pass the Certification, Accreditation, and Compliance subcommittee improved proposal. The details on implementing the proposal as part of farmers’ organic system plans should be worked out in cooperation with the Wild Farm Alliance and experienced certifiers.

Comment by April 4 to Protect Organic Integrity

(Beyond Pesticides, March 16, 2018) In a pattern of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) actions that hurt the integrity of the organic label on food products, the agency has decided to withdraw final organic animal welfare regulations that would have provided standardized and measurable criteria for managing the health and welfare of organic livestock and poultry. USDA’s latest decision is another in a series of actions aimed at lowering the bar of organic integrity in order to serve the needs of large organic producers. In November of 2017, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), backed by the National Organic Program (NOP), rolled back decades of agreement that organic agriculture is soil-dependent, by allowing soil-less hydroponic operations to be certified organic. This has sparked stakeholders to collaborate on the development of an add-on label to certified organic food, with standards that meet the intent and letter of organic law.

Despite widespread stakeholder disagreement and evidence to the contrary, USDA has concluded that the organic animal husbandry practice standards do not need to be improved  because existing regulations are “robust” and “effective,” despite widespread stakeholder disagreement. USDA justified withdrawing the regulations, by stating that they could “have a negative effect on participation in the National Organic Program.”

Consensus on key elements in the Organic Livestock and Poultry Production (OLPP) final rule emerged after decades of horse trading between farmers, organic food producers, public interest organizations, retailers, the public and NOP. While not everyone agreed on all aspects, there was widespread agreement that the adoption of a baseline rule was long overdue. After five rewrites, stakeholders were able to overlook their differences, agree to disagree and unite in their call for the establishment of basic regulations. Their goal was to codify the strong animal welfare practices required by organic dairy, meat, poultry and egg producers in order to protect animal health and wellbeing and to maintain consumer confidence in these organic markets.

Investigative research into organic CAFO-like livestock feedlots and hen houses have underscored the urgency for USDA to take action to remedy transgressions in organic poultry and livestock management. In its expose “Scrambled Eggs” Cornucopia reveals how large organic poultry producers pack flocks of 150,000 hens or more into overcrowded, dimly lit warehouses. Photos show that such facilities lack pasture and access to the outdoors which inhibits the hens’ natural behavior of pecking, scratching and rooting in the soil. Some large producers skirt the outdoor access requirements by providing concrete slabs with no natural vegetation.  Others have a few doors at their facility that are so small that outdoor access is not possible for most birds in the flock. For these reasons and many others, organic stakeholders have been pushing for the adoption of organic animal welfare rules since the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990.

In response to USDA’s notice to withdraw the final rule, a broad base of stakeholders rallied in January 2018 to support the adoption of the OLPP. An overwhelming majority of 63,000 out of 72,000 comments sent to USDA supported the rule. Only 50 commenters opposed it, primarily big Ag such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council. They argued, with little understanding of organic consumer expectations, that animal welfare has nothing to do with organic. In contrast, OLPP rule advocates stressed the essentiality of the rule in preventing animal cruelty by ensuring universal compliance with mandatory, standardized organic animal welfare practices and prohibitions. The regulations would have established minimum requirements for critical welfare management practices such as stocking densities for organic chickens inside and outside, their access to the outdoors and vegetation, and humane transport and slaughter conditions for livestock and poultry.

Congressional Representatives Peter DeFazio, Rosa DeLauro, Ron Kind and Chellie Pingree have also long-championed the need for explicit animal welfare regulations. In a strongly worded press release, they expressed their “extreme disappointment” with USDA’s regulation grab and chastised the agency for basing its decision on “false contentions including the fact that it would hurt participation in the NOP.” By withdrawing the final rule, they argue that “USDA has ignored both the public and organic industry stakeholders. Without clear standards from USDA, we are worried businesses in our Districts will suffer as consumers lose confidence in the organic label.”

In an earlier attack on organic integrity, in 2016, without public input, the NOP reversed the process by which synthetics are allowed in organic – from cycling them out of organic production every five years to now retaining them indefinitely, unless a successful appeal is made to disallow them. Illegal, cheap organic grain imports are on the rise while USDA does little to increase its inspection and enforcement efforts. This inaction hurts U.S. organic grain growers and decreases their ability to remain competitive.

These increasing organic rollbacks, many of which threaten to break the backbone of organic, have inspired the creation of two organic-plus labels, complete with their own inspection and certification systems. Both the Real Organic Project and Regenerative Organic Certification plan to use USDA’s organic certification as the foundation of their labels and then add-on crucial organic provisions that have been revoked or not yet addressed by USDA. Soilless production systems do not qualify for either program and animal welfare provisions will provide a cornerstone for both labels. While still in various stages of development, the labels are also considering the addition of some fair trade and social justice provisions, which many feel are sorely lacking in USDA’s organic regulations.

Now more than ever we need your help in Keeping Organic Strong. Comments to the NOSB, the stakeholder advisory Board to USDA on all matters organic, are due on April 4th. Check out Beyond Pesticides’ website to read our submissions to the NOSB, which will be posted over the course of the next week. Feel free to borrow liberally from them to help you draft comments on those organic issues most important to you.

Sources:  Beyond Pesticides; Civil Eats; Organic Advocacy

(Beyond Pesticides, March 15, 2018) On Tuesday, a group of 56 scientists studying the effects of neonicotinoids sent a letter to California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) highlighting the threat neonicotinoids pose to the health of California’s waterways. The scientists urge CDPR to take steps to reduce neonicotinoid contamination of the state’s streams and rivers. This comes as neonicotinoids were recently reported to be pervasive throughout the Great Lakes, and federal assessments confirm high risks to aquatic species.

According to the letter, neonicotinoids are already found in California waterways at levels that exceed the freshwater invertebrate aquatic life benchmarks and could harm or kill many sensitive aquatic invertebrate species. Citing a 2016 study by the Xerces Society that found imidacloprid frequently in California’s rivers and streams at levels harmful to species such as mayflies and caddisflies. Imidacloprid samples in California from 2010-2015 showed that 42% (197 of 468) of detections exceeded the acute invertebrate benchmark and all of the detections exceeded the chronic invertebrate benchmark. In certain regions of the state, particularly agricultural areas, the imidacloprid benchmark for acute effects was more frequently exceeded.

The scientists note these chemicals can “have consequences for broader ecosystems. Declines in aquatic invertebrates put other species at risk, particularly insectivorous fish, amphibians, and birds. Changes in aquatic invertebrate communities resulting from exposure to insecticides can also affect ecosystem functions, potentially leading to increased methane production or upsurges in pest species like mosquitoes.”

Accordingly, the scientists request CDPR consider actions to limit imidacloprid contamination and assess the risks the other neonicotinoids may pose in the state. Earlier this year, new data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reveals the year-round presence of neonicotinoids in the Great Lakes – the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem. The study, Year-round presence of neonicotinoid insecticides in tributaries to the Great Lakes, USA, sampled ten major tributaries to the Great Lakes from October 2015 to September 2016. Neonicotinoids were detected in every month sampled. At least one neonicotinoid was detected in 74 percent of the samples, with 10 percent of samples containing three neonicotinoids. The most frequently detected neonicotinoid was imidacloprid (53%), followed by clothianidin (44%), thiamethoxam (22%), acetamiprid (2%), and dinotefuran (1%).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released preliminary ecological (non-pollinator) assessments for the neonicotinoids clothianidin, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran and the terrestrial ecological assessment for imidacloprid earlier this year, finding that these pesticides pose both acute and chronic risks to aquatic life and birds. The aquatic assessment for imidacloprid, also released last year, finds that it threatens the health of U.S. waterways with significant risks to aquatic insects and cascading effects on aquatic food webs.

Neonics are detected regularly in the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms. As a result of risks to aquatic organisms, the Canadian pesticide regulatory agency has recommended banning imidacloprid, a decision that has been delayed. In Europe, a recent survey finds that streams across the United Kingdom (UK) are contaminated with neonicotinoids.

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

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

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

Source: The Xerces Society

(Beyond Pesticides, March 14, 2018) The annual count of Monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico shows declines from last year’s numbers—a 15 percent decrease –according to figures from an official Mexican government count in the winter of 2017. These numbers underscore how at risk the iconic animal is, with a possible collapse of migration if populations are critically low.

Monarch butterflies (also known as Eastern Monarchs) embark on an impressive migration every year. Roughly 99 percent of all North American monarchs migrate each winter to oyamel fir forests on 12 mountaintops in central Mexico. Scientists estimate the population size by measuring the area of trees turned orange by the clustering butterflies. But for the second year in a row, its numbers are declining — 2.48 hectares of occupied winter habitat is down from 2.91 hectares last winter. Apart from partial rebounds in the winters of 2001 and 2003, numbers have gone down steadily since 1996. Overall monarchs have declined by more than 80 percent over the past two decades.

Earlier this year, Western Monarchs – those found west of the Rocky Mountains – overwinter in coastal California forests, were also found to be declining at an alarming rate, with scientists and conservation groups pointing to man-made factors like logging, climate change, and herbicide use on genetically engineered (GE) crop fields as primary drivers. A study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last year on the butterfly’s dwindling population indicates that western monarchs have an extinction risk of 86% within the next 50 years. Within only 20 years, the risk is still 72%.

This year’s drop in Monarch populations is attributed in part to unseasonal weather last year including late spring freezes that killed milkweed and caterpillars, and an unseasonably warm fall that kept late-season monarchs from migrating. A 2017 study by the World Wildlife Fund and other conservation groups determined that the population has decreased by 80% since the 1990s, further warning that within 20 years eastern monarch’s iconic migration route from Canada to Mexico could completely, and likely irreversibly, collapse.

A range of factors have been linked to monarch declines. Natural events such as extreme weather, wildfires and smoke have been discussed, but a greater emphasis has been placed on manmade impacts. Climate change can alter the migration patterns. Legal and illegal logging and development in Mexico and coastal California has eliminated significant habitat for monarch overwintering. And milkweed, the sole source for female monarchs to lay eggs and perpetuate the species, once abundant throughout the entirety of the United States, is now nearly eradicated around farmland through which the species makes its annual migration. An estimated 165 million acres of breeding habitat in the United States has been lost to herbicide spraying (particularly on GE cropland) and development.

In 2014, conservationists led by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the butterfly under the Endangered Species Act. Monarchs are threatened by a host of sources destroying their habitat and food, but studies have shown that a main source of their catastrophic demise decline has been genetically engineered crops, engineered with resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide, which has dramatically increased the pesticide use on their habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s initial decision was that endangered species protection may be warranted, and pursuant to a court victory the Service agreed to make a final decision by June 2019.

Later last year, over 100 conservation and environmental groups urged the federal government to increase funding to protect and conserve monarch butterflies. The groups  sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to do more to help the imperiled butterfly. The letter requests the agency increase the allotment of conservation funds from $4 million- spent last year- to $100 million. The increase in funds is needed for efforts to increase milkweed habitat. Currently, USDA has taken some steps to protect monarchs. These include the implementation of the Monarch Butterfly Habitat Development Project and support of the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund. But, according to the letter, “Restoring the monarch butterfly and its habitat will require a substantial contribution from the agricultural sector and strong leadership…”

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

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, March 13, 2018) Do you want to take toxic pesticides out of your community? Then there’s nothing better you can do in April than attend Beyond Pesticides’ 36^th National Pesticide Forum this year, Organic Neighborhoods: For healthy children, families, and ecology, April 13-14, in Irvine, California. Discounted early bird registration ends this week on Thursday, March 15. This is a unique opportunity to share knowledge with those on the cutting edge of research, meet with effective advocates to talk organizing and policy strategy on protecting people and the environment, and learn from practitioners on implementation of plans for organic management practices without toxic pesticides.

Speaking at the Forum, Carey Gillam, investigative reporter and author of Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science. The story of Monsanto and the marketing of glyphosate (Roundup).

Why It’s Important to Attend the Forum
Organic Neighborhoods: for healthy children, families, and ecology reaffirms the value of bringing people together to share the latest science, policies, and practices to protect our communities from toxic pesticide use. We take a positive approach in showcasing the opportunities to adopt organic practices that eliminate the need for toxic chemicals. Change is emanating from communities and businesses across the country because federal and, too often, state governments are not functioning as they should for the common good.

Topics include environmental health, organic land management, pollinator protection, managing invasive species, local action, and protecting waterways.

Sponsors
The meeting is convened by Beyond Pesticides, University of California Irvine’s Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, and Non Toxic Irvine, and sponsored by Center for Regenerative Agriculture, Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR), Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association (ALBA), Audubon California, Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment (CRPE), Theodore Payne Foundation for Wild Flowers and Native Plants, Parents for a Safer Environment, American Bird Conservancy (ABC), Moms Across America, Moms Advocating Sustainability, and more. Major corporate sponsors include Organic Valley, Dr. Bronners, Stonyfield, and Tabard Inn.

Check out this partial list of confirmed speakers below and see complete speaker list and bios here.

Carey Gillam, author and reporter, Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science
Johnny Gonzales, environmental land management field operations manager, delivering ecological land management with managed goat grazing for invasives and fire mitigation throughout Southern California
Steve Sprinkel, president of the Ojai Center for Regenerative Agriculture, and farms 12 organic acres
John Bohert and Scott Eldredge, Eldredge Lumber and Hardware, converting ACE hardware store to organic compatible products
Scott P. Carroll, PhD, biologist, Institute for Contemporary Evolution, UC Davis advocates conservation biology in understanding invasive plant management
Phillip Ackerman-Leist, professor of Sustaining Agriculture and Food Systems at Green Mountain College, farmer, and author of A Precautionary Tale
Tyrone Hayes, PhD, professor of Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley, and groundbreaking researcher on endocrine disruptors
Angel Garcia, community organizer and founder of Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety.
Sandy DeSimone, PhD, director of Research and Education at Starr Ranch Sancturary
Nayamin Martinez, MPH, director of the Central California Environmental Justice Network (CCEJN)
Caroline Cox, research director, Center for Environmental Health, tracking pesticide science and law
Meg Sears, PhD, an Ottawa-based scientist, and Chair of Prevent Cancer Now
James Nieh, PhD, professor of Biological Sciences at UC San Diego, focusing on bee communication, cognition, and health, as well as the effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bee behavior
Chip Osborne, president, Osborne Organics, organic turfgrass and landscape expert, successfully implements organic land management nationwide
Warren Porter, PhD, professor of Zoology and Environmental Toxicology at the University of Wisconsin Madison, researching pesticides and genetically engineered organisms
Routt Reigart, MD, professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, one of the nation’s top pediatric experts on pesticides, author of Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning
Bruce Blumberg, PhD, professor of Developmental and Cell Biology at UC Irvine School of Biological Sciences, studying epigenetic pesticide effects
Dean Baker, MD, MPH, former director, Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health at UC Irvine
Kim Konte, board member, Non Toxic Irvine, spearheading Irvine, CA ordinance transitioning city to organic land management
Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides, supporting advocacy for federal, state, and local policies and practices
City of Irvine officials, transitioning the community to organic land management

See Forum flyer here.

Please register here.
Special rates for attendees available at Hotel Irvine. Make your hotel reservation here.

* If you would like more information about the Friday (April 13) field trip, touring the California Starr Ranch Sanctuary, examples of organically managed playing fields, and an “approaches to managed-goat-grazing” demonstration (courtesy of Environmental Land Management), please email: [email protected]

See you at the Forum!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 12, 2018) European Regulators Confirm Neonicotinoids Harm Bees, Increasing Likelihood of Continent-Wide Ban

A comprehensive assessment released last week by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) confirmed that neonicotinoids, the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, pose risks to honey bees and wild pollinators. EFSA analyzed over 1,500 studies from academia, beekeeper associations, chemical companies, farmer groups, non-governmental organizations, and national regulators. EFSA’s risk assessment provides a definitive, independent conclusion that overall, continued use of these chemicals risks the long-term health of pollinator populations.

Tell Your Governor to Ban Neonicotinoid Insecticides

“The availability of such a substantial amount of data as well as the guidance has enabled us to produce very detailed conclusions,” said Jose Tarazona, PhD, head of EFSA’s Pesticides Unit in a press release. This is EFSA’s second comprehensive evaluation of the three most commonly used neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, clothianidin, and thiamethoxam. Earlier research finalized in 2013 led the European Union (EU) to ban use of the three neonicotinoids on agricultural flowering crops. The new assessment applies EFSA guidance to assessing risks to bees and on the initial review. It includes literature not only on honey bees, but also on wild pollinators, including bumblebees and solitary bees.

EFSA stresses that although some low risks were identified, “In most of the cases where some low risks were identified for a particular use, high risks were also identified for the same use.” Risk assessors looked at three broad routes of exposure: residues from pollen and nectar, dust drift during sowing or application of neonicotinoid-treated seeds, and water consumption. While, for instance, looking at canola production, EFSA determined that chemical residues in nectar and pollen pose a low risk to honey bees, they are at the same time deemed a high risk for bumblebees, and residues via dust drift are likewise considered a high risk to honey bees. Thus, the researchers emphasize that their conclusion of risk is broad and all-encompassing.

That aspect is important, because throughout the over 11-year crisis, the major manufacturers of neonicotinoids, Bayer and Syngenta, as well as companies like Monsanto that coat their proprietary seeds in these chemicals, have worked hard to muddle and spin scientific conclusions around neonicotinoids. One study showing low risks to one pollinator does not negate high risks to another species, but the chemical industry seeks to downplay hazards, despite the preponderance of evidence linking bee decline to pesticides. Between now and the European Commission’s upcoming vote, these efforts are likely to increase in the media, as well as behind closed doors.

EFSA’s assessment should be a wake-up call for federal and state regulators in the U.S. In January 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its risk assessment documents on pollinator exposure to neonicotinoids, finding no significant risks despite the overwhelming scientific literature and despite identifying instances where bees could be put at risk.

The differences between EPA’s  and EFSA’s conclusions highlight the problem with the U.S. system for registering and evaluating pesticides, but also points to an agency that is close to the companies it regulates. While EFSA considered a range of independent data for its assessments, EPA only considers information provided by pesticide manufacturers. The agency has the ability to review independent science or call in additional information from producers to ensure there are no adverse effects from a pesticide’s use, but often neglects to do so. The agency also ignores or minimizes the effect of entire routes of exposure. EPA’s assessment did not consider risks from exposure via water consumption, and did not conduct an assessment on exposure from the dust drift off of treated seeds, instead citing best management practices to reduce dust. Rather than ban or even restrict neonicotinoids, EPA’s only concrete response has been to slightly alter the label language on neonicotinoid products. At present, the agency is preparing to reregister these insecticides for another 15-year period.

In view of EPA’s failure to act, states must take the lead in protecting the nation’s pollinators.

Tell Your Governor to Ban Neonicotinoid Insecticide

Letter to Governor:

Please take action to protect pollinators in our state by banning neonicotinoid insecticides. A comprehensive assessment released last week by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) confirmed that neonicotinoids, the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, pose risks to honey bees and wild pollinators. EFSA analyzed over 1,500 studies from academia, beekeeper associations, chemical companies, farmer groups, non-governmental organizations, and national regulators. EFSA’s risk assessment provides a definitive, independent conclusion that overall, continued use of these chemicals risks the long-term health of pollinator populations.

The risk assessment stresses that although some low risks were identified, “in most of the cases where some low risks were identified for a particular use, high risks were also identified for the same use.” Risk assessors looked at three broad routes of exposure: residues from pollen and nectar, dust drift during sowing or application of neonicotinoid-treated seeds, and water consumption. While, for instance, looking at canola production, EFSA determined that chemical residues in nectar and pollen pose a low risk to honey bees, they are at the same time deemed a high risk for bumblebees, and residues via dust drift are likewise considered a high risk to honey bees. Thus, the researchers emphasize that their conclusion of risk is broad and all-encompassing.

The differences between EPA’s  and EFSA’s methodologies highlight the problem with the U.S. system for registering and evaluating pesticides, but also point to an agency that is close to the companies it regulates. While EFSA considered a range of independent data for its assessments, EPA only considers information provided by pesticide manufacturers. The agency has the ability to review independent science or call in additional information from producers to ensure there are no adverse effects from a pesticide’s use, but generally neglects to do so. The agency also ignores or minimizes the effect of entire routes of exposure. EPA’s assessment did not consider risks from exposure via water consumption, and did not conduct an assessment on exposure from the dust drift off of treated seeds, instead putting the responsibility on farmers or applicators to reduce dust. Rather than ban or even restrict neonicotinoids, EPA’s only concrete response has been to slightly alter the label language on neonicotinoid products. At present, the agency is preparing to reregister these insecticides for another 15 year period.

As Governor, you have the authority and responsibility to protect our environment. In the absence of adequate federal action, it is critical that you take action to protect pollinators. Please take the necessary action to ban neonicotinoid insecticides.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 9, 2018) Milk from 100% grass-fed cows has higher levels of beneficial fatty acids than conventional and even organic milk, according to a study published by an international team of scientists in the journal Food Science and Nutrition. The research follows up on data published in 2013, which compared only conventional and organic milk, finding organic milk contained 62 percent more omega-3 fatty acids and 25 percent fewer omega-6s. “Grassmilk farmers have long been telling us that they believed the nutrition of this milk was higher than that of the milk they were producing when they were still feeding grain,” said Logan Peterman, agricultural research and analytics manager at Organic Valley to Wisconsin Public Radio. “We kind of set about to test that question and really make sure that the signal was there, that we could be certain of it, that we were following the correct methods and also that it was sort of refereed by an outside party.”

The study compared the composition of several fatty acids within the three types of milk tested (conventional, organic, and grass-fed). Of primary concern was the ratio of omega-6 to omega 3 fatty acids. Although omega-6s are not necessarily bad fats, high amounts or unbalanced ratios of omega-6 to omega-3s has been linked to a range of health problems, from cardiovascular disease, to cancer and other illnesses. High consumption of omega-3s, on the other hand, is linked to reduced risks of a number of diseases, including diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cancer, and many other chronic disorders. The diet of early humans maintained a ratio of 1, but modern Western food production, with its focus on processed and hydrogenated fats, has raised that ratio to an average of 15.

Looking at over 1,600 milk samples over a 3-year span, results found ratios of omega-6 to omega-3 to be .95 for 100% grassfed milk, 2.28 for organic milk, and 5.77 in conventional milk.

While organic milk producers are required to graze their heard for at least 120 days during the growing season, only 30% of their diet is required to come from grass eaten when pastured, with grains intake permitted. The grass-fed milk in the study was defined as requiring 60% of a cow’s diet from pasture feeding, with nongrazing portion coming from forage-based feeds such as clover, grass hay, or alfalfa; grain and silage are not permitted. Conventional dairies have no such requirement, and are often fed silage from genetically engineered grains, which are not allowed in either grass-fed or organic dairy operations.

The research also found that, given limited fatty acids in the typical Western diet, switching to grass-fed milk could decrease an individual’s omega-6 to omega-3 intake ratio by as much as 8 points and potentially decrease the risk of certain diseases. Although the researchers acknowledge the benefits of fish and shellfish as a major source of beneficial fatty acids, past studies show the majority of Americans do not consume enough or any oily fish. Moreover, grass fed milk can supply certain omega-3s that fish oils cannot, and vice versa, indicating that an all of the above strategy may be best.

Co-author of the study Bradley Heins, PhD, of the University of Minnesota points to the potential for organic dairies to receive an additional cost premium for switching to 100% grass feed. “With growing demand for organic dairy products, producers may be able to expand their profitability and market share by converting to grass-based pasture and forage-feeding,” he said to ExpressUK.

While grass-fed and organic milk may cost a bit more, it can be said that consumers purchasing these products are simply paying the “true cost” it takes to produce this food. The price of conventional milk does not account for the health costs one may pay down the road by missing out on essential nutrients. Nor does it include the environmental pollution caused by confined animal feed operations (factory farms), or adequately consider the well-being of animals producing this food.

Studies consistently back up claims that organic food is more nutrient dense than conventional products. A study published in 2016 by a team of European researchers found organic milk and meat contained 50% more omega-3 fatty acids, as well as slightly higher concentrations of iron, vitamin E and some carotenoids.

It is worth noting that the organic industry has a problem when it comes to the issue of milk production and factory farms. Aerial photographs taken by the Cornucopia Institute in 2014 showed cows in cramped conditions with no access to pasture as required under organic law. These and other issues contributed to an impassioned statement on threats to organic integrity by retiring National Organic Standards Board member Francis Thicke late last year. See also a new technique being developed to verify grass-fed claims.

The good news is that new tools are coming to the market that should allow consumers peace of mind that the cows that produced their milk were grazed on grass, and identify rule-breaking dairies.

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

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

Source: Food Science and Nutrition, Wisconsin Public Radio