(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2019) Scientists studying the precipitous decline in populations of monarch butterflies are searching for causes, and pesticide use is one of the factors under their (figurative) microscopes. Purdue University entomology professor Ian Kaplan, PhD and doctoral student Paola Olaya-Arenas recently turned their attention to a poorly studied potential factor — exposure during monarchs’ larval stage to non-target pesticides on their primary host plant and food source, common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). In Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, the researchers report finding evidence of 14 different agricultural pesticides on milkweed near Indiana farm fields, including neonicotinoids clothianidin and thiamethoxam, the pyrethroid deltamethrin, and imidacloprid in a few samples.

The research team’s primary aim was to identify and measure the range of pesticides to which monarch caterpillars might be exposed, or which they might consume, on milkweed plants in agricultural landscapes. Secondarily, they hoped to learn how pesticide presence varies with distance between milkweed plants and nearby agricultural sites. In the subject Indiana environs, where corn and soybeans are dominant crops, the study found neonicotinoid residues on milkweed, particularly those of the active ingredients in clothianidin and thiamethoxam. They note, “Although seed treatment data are no longer reported for U.S. row crops, most corn in our region is seed treated, primarily with clothianidin, and much of the soybean acreage also employs a seed treatment, mainly thiamethoxam . . . . thus it is not surprising that these two insecticides were among the ones most commonly detected.”

The precipitous plummet in monarch butterfly populations — 80–90% over the past 15–20 years — portends a poor prognosis. A 2017 study conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that western monarchs have an extinction risk of 86% within the next 50 years. A variety of factors has been implicated in monarch loss: Beyond Pesticides reported in 2018 that, for example, climate change can alter monarch migration patterns, and logging and development in Mexico and coastal California have eliminated significant habitat for monarch overwintering.

Perhaps a chief reason for the decline is loss of habitat and food sources due to the rapid and rabid adoption, in agriculture, of glyphosate-based herbicides and the GE (genetically engineered) crop seeds designed to be used with them. As Beyond Pesticides has written, “utilization of these GE crops has all but eliminated milkweeds from these fields, thus eliminating the butterfly’s source of food,” as well as sites for larval hosting. An estimated 165 million acres of breeding habitat in the U.S. have been lost to herbicide spraying and development.

Despite advocacy organizations’ encouragement to homeowners, land managers, and groundskeepers to plant (and not mow down) common milkweed, monarch numbers have continued to decline. Milkweed loves “disturbed ground,” whether farm fields, fence rows, pastures, roadsides, residential gardens, and even thin lawns. It could, before the advent of intensive herbicide use, particularly with GE crops, often be found growing among food crops in farm fields.

Dr. Kaplan and Ms. Olaya-Arenas note that a great deal of recent investigation and advocacy on non-target impacts on pollinators has focused on neonicotinoid pesticides, in large part because of their explosive adoption in agriculture across the globe. Much of that attention has gone to impacts on bees, but butterflies are also affected. Their published research paper notes, “Two recent time-scale analyses of reductions in butterfly diversity over the past several decades link these changes with the introduction and rise of neonicotinoids in the UK.” Of their study, the co-authors add, “The data suggest that early-season monarchs are at greater risk from neonicotinoid exposure than subsequent generations occurring later in the season. Similarly, our data suggest strong annual fluctuations in risk, indicating that monarchs likely encounter a different suite of pesticides each year.”

The researchers collected and evaluated 1,500+ milkweed leaves from seven different sites in Indiana over a two-year period, and found that: (1) insecticide presence and concentrations decreased with greater distance from agricultural fields; and (2) presence and concentration of pesticide compounds appeared to vary by year and month; e.g., clothianidin was found in June but not later in the growing season, and thiamethoxam and deltamethrin were found in year two of the study, but not in year one.

Some organizations have advised planting milkweed at least 125 feet from any farm field. Dr. Kaplan and Ms. Olaya-Arenas say that this metric is not really based in any science, adding, “It’s not a bad idea to put some distance between milkweed and farm fields, but we didn’t see a magic drop off at 125 feet.” This metric may have come from a 2016 U.S. Department of Agriculture “wildlife habitat evaluation guide and decision support tool for monarch butterfly restoration,” which recommended a “125-foot-wide pesticide-free buffer around restored milkweed habitat.”

The research team points to (without outright recommending) a different metric: plant milkweed even farther away from agricultural fields, because some pesticides can be found as far as two kilometers from the site of application. Indeed, spraying of pesticides via aircraft can reach as little as 50% of a target crop — with the other 50% trespassing to areas as far as 30 kilometers downwind.

Such metrics underscore the reality that a very small percentage of the active ingredients in pesticides actually make contact with the targeted pest organism; the rest is subsumed into the larger ecosystem. Neonicotinoids, which are used widely to coat seeds — and which use was a big part of the rapid rise in neonicotinoid employment starting in roughly 2013 — are one of the most environmentally damaging of pesticides. The co-authors identify an example of one reason that might be: in one study, a mere “1.3% of initial seed treatment is recovered from corn plants exposed to the neonicotinoid clothianidin, with the remaining 98–99% of material leached into the environment.” They also identify that “monarch declines have temporally coincided with the increase in use of neonicotinoids throughout agricultural regions in their summer breeding habitat.”

As the researchers say in their paper’s conclusion, “Risk assessment evaluating the potential impacts of pesticides on monarchs entails a two-step process; first, documenting the chemicals that larvae and/or adults are exposed to in the environment, and second, experimentally testing those chemicals most commonly encountered to assess lethal and sub-lethal effects.” Having addressed the first step through this study, they add, “We strongly emphasize . . . that pesticide presence does not necessarily translate into impact. Unlike honeybees, for which LD₅₀ data are widely available on most compounds, at present such information is only available for clothianidin in the monarch system. [BP note: LD₅₀ means the median lethal dose, or the amount of the substance required to kill 50% of a test population.] Clearly, a major emphasis of future research efforts should be to close this knowledge gap by quantifying monarch larval responses to a range of pesticides under controlled lab settings.”

The monarch butterfly faces an uphill slog as it confronts the forces of development, pesticides, climate change, logging, and other sources of habitat destruction and contamination. Solutions must happen on multiple fronts, and efforts are underway. Recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) agreed to a 2020 deadline for deciding on protection for monarchs under the Endangered Species Act — in response to a petition, filed five years ago by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety, that triggered a 2014 status review. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service has deployed a Monarch Butterfly Habitat Development Project to provide funding for efforts to restore monarch habitat and plant common milkweed. It focuses on efforts in the Midwest and on the Great Plains, where it seeks to improving grassland habitat for monarchs. That said, as Beyond Pesticides has identified, the program has been woefully underfunded.

Regular folks can also have an impact in their own and community gardens. Planting milkweed in such environs, as well as “being kind” to it where it is discovered, can help create oases for monarchs. In addition, the toll taken by GE crops and their companion herbicides can be beaten back by purchasing organic food and other organic products whenever possible. See, also, Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind and Hedgerows for Biodiversity. For additional ideas on protecting monarchs and other pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage.

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

Sources: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2019.00223/full?_ga=2.99585561.668228990.1562015812-1408830912.1562015812 and https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2019/Q2/pesticides-found-in-monarchs-milkweed-near-farm-fields.html

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2019) This is a story about a chemical pesticide, a fungicide, in wide use for which the mode of action, i.e., the ability to cause harm, has not been fully understood. It is not a story unique to this pesticide. Rather, it is an important story to consider when deciding to use a pesticide or allowing a pesticide to be used. The question is whether the chemical could be broadly problematic beyond the target organisms, in this case fungi? In its coverage of a study published in March, the American Association for the Advancement of Science publication, EurekAlert, reported that, “The ability of [the fungicide] fludioxonil to act on a sugar-metabolizing enzyme common to all cells, and to produce the damaging compound methylglyoxal, may mean that the pesticide has more potential to harm non-fungal cells than previously thought. Although fludioxonil has been deemed safe for use, the authors . . . suggest that the effects of this widely used pesticide has upon animals be re-examined.”

The research study, published in March in Scientific Reports and led by T. Tristan Brandhorst, PhD (in the lab of Dr. Bruce Klein at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and UW School of Medicine and Public Health), sheds light on that mechanism and raises the alarm about implications of the discovery. Among the myriad pesticides used in agriculture is fludioxonil, a phenylpyrrole fungicide, which was developed to treat seeds during storage. However, it has come to be used commonly on grains, vegetables, fruits, and ornamental plants during cultivation, and worse (more on this below), to treat produce after it has been harvested to extend “shelf life.” Though fludioxonil is effective in killing fungi, the mode, or mechanism, of action for this pesticide was previously not well understood.

Fludioxonil was introduced in 1993–1994 by Ciba-Geigy (now Syngenta), and pesticides that include the compound are now marketed under various brand names, including Cannonball, Switch, Medallion, Helix, Celest, Apron, Agri Star Fludioxonil, Dyna-shield Fludioxonil, Maxim, Scholar, Spirato, and others. Syngenta promotes it for use on “targeted fungi, such as snow mold, seedborne and soilborne Fusarium, [and] seedling blights or bunts.” Its use has increased in the 25 years since then, and particularly in the last few, ratcheting up concern about its features and impacts.

In a previous investigation, Drs. Brandhorst and Klein pointed to the uncertainty about how fludioxonil actually causes fungi cell death, asserting that this uncertainty merits a re-evaluation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its potential impacts on human health, noting reports of the fungicide’s ability to disrupt hepatic, endocrine, and neurological systems. Prior to this current study, it was believed that fludioxonil targets hybrid histidine kinase (HHK), a protein in fungal cells. Syngenta has theorized, re: the mechanism of action, that fludioxonil binds to HHK, activating a biochemical process that causes fungal cells to kill themselves. In 2016, Dr. Klein’s lab team found that, although fludioxonil needs HHK in order to kill fungi, the pesticide and protein do not directly interact.

The scientists in Dr. Klein’s lab turned to the hypothesis that oxidative stress — a common effect of pesticides on their targets — might be the linchpin. (Oxidative stress is an imbalance, in cells, between the production of free radicals and reactive metabolites, and their elimination by antioxidants.) Yet, the team found that, when they exposed fungi to various kinds of oxidative stress, cells remained healthy. Finally, the researchers discovered that fludioxonil inhibits an enzyme related to cellular sugar metabolism, causing (via a spike in methylglyoxal release) activation of the deadly HHK cascade.

Dr. Brandhorst notes, “The take home lesson is that fludioxonil is multifactorial. It’s not compromising cells by one solitary mechanism. It has potential to damage cells in a variety of ways.” He references a 2007 investigation that demonstrated that in fungi, disruption of glutathione homeostasis (which manages oxidative stress) synergistically enhances the toxicity of fludioxonil, suggesting that an oxidative stress response pathway may overshadow osmoregulation functions (maintenance of constant osmotic pressure in the fluids of an organism by the control of water and salt concentrations). Glutathione is primarily an intracellular antioxidant, which protects cells against the effects of free radicals — which can include damage to DNA. Fludioxonil has been shown to have DNA damaging impacts on human liver cells, and Dr. Brandhorst suspects that glutathione depletion (a signaling event that regulates the activation of cell death pathways) may ultimately be identified as a factor in fludioxonil-related hepatic damage. The enzyme-suppressing action of fludioxonil on an enzyme common to all cells is at the heart of the alarm this research is raising, but it is not the only reason the fungicide needs to be re-evaluated.

Fludioxonil persists in soil — near the surface for weeks, and for years if it ends up deeper in the soil, where sunlight cannot speed its degradation; it is also a “super toxin” for earthworms. The fungicide’s extensive post-harvest use on food crops is of particular concern because it eliminates the chance for wind, rain, and ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) light to break down the compound, and once applied, the waxy fungicide is not easily removed by rinsing. Further, UV-vis treatment of produce (which is sometimes done to reduce pathogens on fresh fruits and vegetables) actually significantly increases the toxicity of fludioxonil.

The fungicide also is an EPA Category I toxin — “highly toxic and severely irritating” — to aquatic plants, bacteria, insects, fish, and aquatic invertebrates, generating concern about its use near water bodies or shorelines. Beyond all that, the lead author indicates that “there is also reason to believe that breakdown products of this pesticide may be 100 times more toxic than fludioxonil itself.”

In addition, the issue of synergistic action among multiple pesticide compounds, or active and adjuvant ingredients in a pesticide, is woefully under-addressed by regulators. Synergistic action was explained simply and long ago by Beyond Pesticides in its journal Pesticides and You: “The concept of interaction is fundamental to understanding the processes by which chemical mixtures act. If the effect is simply additive, the sum of the effects is the same as if we were exposed to each chemical individually. Synergy occurs when the effect of a mixture of chemicals is greater than the sum of the individual effects.”

The federal bodies in the U.S. that are supposed to ensure the safety of both chemicals used in the environment, and those used on food crops and products — EPA, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), respectively — fail to do so. Another passage from the Pesticides and You article offers background: “In 1996, EPA was required for the first time to consider cumulative pesticide exposures in limited circumstances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). [That Act], which amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), recognizes that real-world pesticide exposures do not occur as single discrete exposures to a specific pesticide, but rather in combination [with] several pesticides at once. . . . To address the issue of multiple pesticide exposures, FQPA directs EPA to consider combinations of pesticides that have a common mechanism of toxicity when setting tolerances” [“acceptable” levels of pesticide residue in agricultural products]. Because this mandate is a narrow one, confined to compounds that have a “common mechanism of toxicity,” many chemicals are never evaluated by EPA for their synergistic potential.

Thus, EPA continues not to evaluate comprehensively for synergistic effects, which can be more toxic than exposure to a single compound. In 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity wrote an extensive report on this issue: Toxic Concoctions: How the EPA Ignores the Dangers of Pesticide Cocktails. Adding to the concern about fludioxonil’s mechanism of action and the implications for all kinds of organisms, including humans, is its synergistic potential. A 2012 study by French researchers found that a mixture of fludioxonil and cyprodinil, another fungicide, yielded data suggesting cytotoxic (lethal to cells) and genotoxic (damaging to DNA) effects at low concentrations, and with a significantly higher effect of the mixture than would be expected from an exposure response to the individual fungicides. This study by Dr. Brandhorst, et al. adds to the growing body of research on the interactive effects of pesticides on human health and the environment.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a far-more Precautionary approach to pest control in land management and agriculture, with a transition to organic methods as the ultimate goal. It also monitors and reports on emerging research and developments related to pesticide use through its Daily News Blog and its journal, Pesticides and You.

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

Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6433957/ and personal communication with the study’s lead author, T. Tristan Brandhorst [[email protected]]

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2019) A disturbing association between urinary triclosan concentrations and osteoporosis has been identified in an epidemiological study. Drawing from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) results for 1,848 U.S. adult women, the authors conclude that higher concentrations of urinary triclosan are associated with lower bone mass density and higher prevalence of osteoporosis among U.S. adult women.

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, adds weight to previous laboratory results, which showed that endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as triclosan can interfere with bone metabolism. Triclosan and its byproducts are known endocrine disruptors and have been shown in laboratory studies to interfere with collagen and bone structure. Taken together with previous findings, the new epidemiological results demonstrate that the ubiquitous endocrine disruptor triclosan “could lead to lower BMD [benchmark dose] and increased prevalence of osteoporosis in U.S. adult women.”

Triclosan is used as an antimicrobial agent in products regulated by both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and cumulative exposure to triclosan registered by both agencies pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Triclosan exposure has become so common that it has shown up in the blood, urine and breast milk of people across the globe. While people who use triclosan products daily have higher levels of the chemical in their bodies, even consumers who do not use triclosan on their skin are exposed to it through food, water, and even household dust.

Several independent, peer-reviewed research studies have identified triclosan as an endocrine disrupting chemical, not only through its effects on the thyroid system but also through its disruption of ovarian and testicular steroidogenesis. A study by British researchers found that triclosan has estrogenic and androgenic hormone properties, and exposure could potentially contribute to the development of breast cancer. Despite these findings, EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) has not included triclosan among chemicals to investigate for endocrine disrupting effects. Therefore, EPA’s evaluation of triclosan fails to address one of the most concerning aspects of its chemical activity with respect to human health.

On top of its endocrine disrupting effects, recent work shows that triclosan is a possible human carcinogen. A 2016 peer-reviewed study published in the Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology found that triclosan promotes liver cancer cell development in mice through pathways shared with humans. EPA, however, relies on outdated science in its determination of the carcinogenicity of triclosan.

In addition to direct modes of carcinogenicity, triclosan poses risks due to release of known carcinogenic and highly toxic byproducts and impurities. Triclosan, which has been shown to be frequently present as a contaminant in finished U.S. drinking water, mixes with chlorinated drinking water to form the probable human carcinogen, chloroform. When released into surface water and exposed to sunlight, triclosan can also react with chlorinated water to form toxic polychlorinated dioxins. Dioxins have been shown to cause health problems as severe as weakening of the immune system, decreased fertility, miscarriage, birth defects, and cancer.

The present study is not the first to link triclosan exposure to adverse health outcomes in humans. A recent peer-reviewed study, for example, found an association between urinary triclosan and elevated body mass index (BMI) among NHANES survey participants. That study found that the presence versus absence of triclosan in urine was associated with a significant increase of 0.94 BMI points. Taken together, these epidemiological studies raise concern that a by-now ubiquitous chemical may be driving both increased BMI and decreased bone mass density, thus placing more people at risk of osteoporosis and other adverse health outcomes.

The new findings add yet another concern to the list of ailments that have been linked to triclosan exposure. What remains to be done is for EPA and FDA to act in accordance with these known risks, and ban all uses of triclosan, which presently contribute to unacceptable degrees of exposure impacting most of the US population. Beyond Pesticides holds that safer alternatives are available and must be used to protect public health and the environment.

Join Beyond Pesticides to end to the registration of pesticides with known adverse effects, and start of a new system of registering only those products which can be shown to be essential, effective, and least-toxic to humans and the environment. Stay abreast of new science and regulatory updates by tracking the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog.

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

Source: Association between urinary triclosan with bone mass density and osteoporosis in the US adult women, 2005-2010 

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2019) German cockroaches, the bane of many apartment-dwellers throughout the U.S., can rapidly develop cross-resistance to insecticides they have never been exposed to, according to researchers from Purdue University. “This is a previously unrealized challenge in cockroaches,” said Michael Scharf, PhD, whose findings were published in the journal Scientific Reports. “Cockroaches developing resistance to multiple classes of insecticides at once will make controlling these pests almost impossible with chemicals alone.” In the face of pesticide resistance, integrated measures that focus structural, mechanical, and cultural pest management practices must become standard practice for this notorious pest.

Dr. Scharf and his colleagues began their study at two separate housing complexes in Indianapolis, IN and Danville, IL. Prior to the study, researchers pre-treated a subset of cockroaches in each building, and selected five insecticides out of 14 commercially available. These insecticides – abamectin, pyriproxyfen, thiamethoxam, lambda-cyhalothrin, and boric acid, were used because cockroaches had already developed significant resistance to others tested, mostly synthetic pyrethroids. Pre-treatment applications of synthetic pyrethroids revealed over 80% of cockroaches surviving.

For the insecticides left with any level of efficacy, researchers established three separate treatment approaches, and stuck with it for six months, with one application each month, to test for additional changes in resistance. In the first, only the insecticide abamectin was applied. In the second, a mixture of insecticides was applied. And for the third, insecticides were rotated each month.

Overall, all the treatment regimens established fared very poorly against German cockroaches. Only the single abamectin treatment showed any promise in one housing complex. At the Indianapolis location, cockroaches were found to be susceptible to the chemical beforehand, and numbers decreased significantly after two applications. However, at the Danville location, roughly 10% were already resistant to abamectin, which permitted their population to flourish after the first application.

Rotating the insecticides used each month resulted in cockroach populations that were relatively stable or increased, while the treatment with a mixture of pesticides resulted in a population explosion. And researchers found that for cockroaches that survived after an application of one chemical didn’t develop resistance merely to that one chemical or even class of chemicals, they also developed resistance to pesticides in other chemical classes. This occurred even if they had never been exposed to these new pesticides in their life.

“We would see resistance increase four- or six-fold in just one generation,” Dr. Scharf said. “We didn’t have a clue that something like that could happen this fast.”

The research results track what farmers are experiencing in agriculture as a result of pressure from agrichemical and insurance companies to spray or grow pesticide-incorporated genetically engineered (PI-GE) crops as a preventative practice. A 2013 study found that “stacking” multiple toxin-producing genes into PI-GE corn crops produced resistance effects in corn earworms similar to what Dr. Scharf and his team discovered. Researchers assumed that earworms resistant to one toxin would survive on one-toxin plants, but die when consuming two-toxin plants because they had not yet developed resistance to the new formulation. However, as Dr. Carrière, Yves Carrière, PhD, lead author of the GE study explains, “[O]n the two-toxin plants, the caterpillars selected for resistance to one toxin survived significantly better than caterpillars from a susceptible strain.”

And in crop fields repeatedly doused with herbicides, a 2018 study by scientists at University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom (UK) determined that herbicide use was not only the major, but the singular factor driving weed resistance. Other factors, such as cultural techniques, or herbicide rotations could not ameliorate resistance at all. And like cockroaches, weed resistance to one herbicide was likely to drive increasingly rapid resistance to other, different chemical formulations.

As Dr. Scharf’s work indicates, integrated methods to address pests are critical to an effective treatment plan. And there is no doubt it is important to control cockroaches, as they increase risk of asthma, and can carry a number of human pathogens. But it is simply not enough to spray a pesticide and assume the job is done. In fact, you may be creating an even worse pest problem.

To manage cockroaches, focus in denying them access to the necessities of life –food, water, and shelter. Seal up cracks and crevices that may allow entryway, install doorsweeps to further impede movement, and make sure food and water is never left out, and all surfaces are clean/vacuumed. Throughout the process, monitor populations with traps to gauge areas of activity, and the intensity of the infestation. Once you have done everything you can to deny food, water, and shelter, employ the only insecticide in the study scientists say cockroaches did not develop a resistance to: boric acid. Place boric acid bait gels around areas of activity, but don’t let up on sanitation or structural repairs. For a step-by-step checklist and guide to take care of a German cockroach problem, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe entry on this atrocious pest.

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

Source: Purdue University Press Release, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, July 1, 2019) France made a decision in May to ban a widely-used fungicide because it damages the endocrine system. In contrast, there has been a stark failure to protect health in the U.S. Despite a Congressional mandate, EPA is not acting on endocrine disruptors linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. This is a tragedy.

Ask your elected members of Congress to demand that EPA tests and acts on regulatory endocrine disruptors as required by law.

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 21 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides.  As of 2019, the program has stalled entirely.

To ensure appropriate follow-through, Congress gave EPA a timeline to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. It started a screening program (Tier 1) and reported results in 2009. According to EPA, Tier 1 Screening (which looks at high exposure chemicals) is not sufficient to implicate a chemical as an endocrine disrupting chemical. It is instead a step to define which chemicals must undergo Tier 2 testing – the only stage that can influence regulatory decision-making. It is unclear when or how EPA will move forward with Tier 2 testing, and how, if at all, any Tier 2 findings will be used to inform actual regulation.

Given widespread exposure to endocrine disruptors, the time is past due for EPA action.

Ask your elected members of Congress to demand that EPA tests and acts on regulatory endocrine disruptors as required by law.

Letter to Congress

I am writing to ask you elevate a critical public health issue –the regulation of endocrine disrupting pesticides. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia. EPA has simply not carried out its statutory mandate to regulate endocrine disrupting pesticides.

Endocrine disruptors are linked to infertility and other reproductive disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and early puberty, as well as to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and childhood and adult cancers. This is a public health tragedy that cannot be ignored.

Since EPA announced it was ready to begin testing both active and “inert” (usually the majority of the undisclosed product ingredients that make the solution, dust, or granule) pesticide ingredients for potential endocrine disrupting effects in 2009, the protocols EPA proposed to use have become significantly outdated, having been first recommended in 1998. In the interim, science has progressed such that it offered more sophisticated assumptions than those that informed the EPA test designs. Further, as Beyond Pesticides noted in 2009, “Each of EPA’s tests and assays was designed under the surveillance of corporate lawyers who had bottom lines to protect, and assorted toxicologists who were not trained in endocrinology and developmental biology. For over a decade, EPA ignored the vast wealth of information on endocrine disruption from independent academic researchers funded by the U.S. and other governments in Europe and Asia.”

In 1998, following a mandate in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, EPA established a program to screen and test pesticides and other widespread chemical substances for endocrine disrupting effects. Despite operating for 21 years, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) has made little progress in reviewing and regulating endocrine-disrupting pesticides.

To ensure timely follow-through, EPA was given a timeline by Congress to: develop a peer-reviewed screening and testing plan with public input not later than two years after enactment (August 1998); implement screening and testing not later than three years after enactment (August 1999); and report to Congress on the findings of the screening and recommendations for additional testing and actions not later than four years after enactment (August 2000).

Despite these deadlines, EPA is stalled and ignoring its responsibility. As of 2019, the program has stalled entirely. That has real costs. Please use the power of your office to push EPA to meet its responsibility to protect the health of people.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2019) As is the case in many countries, the conversation about the use of pesticides has been especially vigorous in the past few years. Switzerland is a case in point: it is undergoing deep scrutiny of pesticide use, and the UN Special Rapporteur on Toxics, Baskut Tuncak, has now said publicly that pesticide companies’ behavior is “seriously deficient” regarding human rights (especially those of children), and that the Swiss government should act more aggressively to phase out use of these hazardous chemicals.

Recently, the pesticide conversation has ratcheted up several notches, not only in the U.S., but also globally, due to greater public awareness of the health and environmental threats of pesticide use, more and more research underscoring those threats, and pointedly, the cascade of litigation against Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) for harm to individuals who have used its glyphosate-based products. Public awareness in Switzerland is also mounting in response to global developments, to recent discoveries that small streams in Swiss agricultural areas are heavily polluted with pesticides, and to broadening recognition that pesticides are linked to a plethora of harms to human health, pollinators, water, farmworkers, wildlife, ecosystems and biodiversity, and more. In 2017, a UN report found that human rights are adversely affected by pesticide use: not only has industrialized agriculture not succeeded in “eliminating world hunger”; it has hurt human and environmental health and well-being.

Corporate disregard for the impacts of pesticide products (which is enabled by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] in the U.S.), rampant malfeasance, and undue influence on governmental regulation all underscore the “seriously deficient” description used by Mr. Tuncak. He commented in the swissinfo.ch interview, “There is a serious deficiency in terms of the human rights due diligence carried out by pesticide manufacturers and other chemical companies in terms of what happens after the point of sale. . . . Most chemical companies have a very shallow approach to human rights due diligence.” He admonished the Swiss government for failing to hold businesses accountable for ensuring chemical safety, and phasing out chemicals of concern. He also critiques countries broadly for their lack of accountability to the pledges made under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management framework, saying that the agreement “hasn’t made a significant dent in phasing out highly hazardous pesticides in the past 13 years.”

In 2014 and again in 2017, Mr. Tuncak was appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes. The website swissinfo.ch interviewed him about his UN charge to assess how pesticides impact human rights, and his thoughts about the responsibilities of governments and industry.

His first comments in the interview went right to the heart of concerns about health impacts of pesticides: “What really concerns me is the widespread exposure of children during sensitive periods of development and how chemicals are found to be more and more hazardous at lower and lower exposure levels over time. Health trends ranging from declining sperm count to rising breast cancer rates are increasingly being associated with exposure to these chemicals in childhood. Particularly concerning is the way multiple chemical exposures can combine and interact with each other to impact health. Yet the few risk assessments that have been completed focus on the risk of exposure to individual substances, and don’t consider the human rights of the child. We are discovering all kinds of nuanced effects of these chemicals on health, which increasingly is changing the way we think about diseases and disabilities that develop later in life. I find this widespread prevalence of childhood exposure very concerning not only based on the science, but also the values, principles and rights of children that are recognised by nearly 200 countries.” Beyond Pesticides has frequently covered the threats of pesticides to children and their development.

The Swiss government has been a bit “all over the map,” and certainly inconsistent, on the matter of pesticide regulation. Critics note, for example, its glacial implementation of a narrowly focused pesticide reduction plan passed in 2017 that purports to reduce by 50% the risks of long-term soil and water pollution by adopting more-sustainable agricultural policies. At the same moment, the Federal Office of Agriculture (FOAG) issued a statement saying it’s not possible to dispense with pesticides altogether. On the ground, activists have advanced the Clean Drinking Water and Healthy Food initiative, which aims to cut subsidies to farmers who use pesticides or antibiotics, and the so-called Neuchâtel initiative, which looks to ban pesticide use in the country, as well as importation of food containing pesticides — both of which should end up going to the ballot box in the next two years.

Just this month, the FOAG banned 12 pesticides that contain chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl, which are commonly used on potatoes, vegetables, berries, and grapes. Yet the ban, which affects a total of 26 products, also allows three of them to continue to be sold for another year. The Swiss parliament is currently considering two additional initiatives to restrict the use and sale of pesticides.

Further, ARC2020 — a multi-stakeholder platform of more than 150 civil society networks and organizations (from 22 European Union member states) that work on issues affected by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy — has noted that Switzerland has made progress on the sustainable agriculture front, including reducing use of what Europeans refer to as Plant Protection Products (PPPs), which are synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.

ARC2020 wrote in March 2019, “The strict Swiss regulatory regime places biodiversity at the heart of agricultural policy. Subsidies for Swiss farmers are pegged to compliance with regulations on pesticide use, nutrient budgets, crop rotation and livestock. Farmers are also required to set aside 7% of farmland for Biodiversity Promotion Areas (BPAs) such as grassland, hedgerows and wildflower strips. Direct payments for ecosystem services are designed to compensate farmers for loss of income. Agroscope’s role is to develop direct and indirect alternatives to pesticides. ‘We only resort to synthetic plant protection products once all other measures have been exhausted.’”

The human rights issues related to pesticide use comprise one aspect of a broader question being discussed across global societies — whether people have inherent rights to health, a livable climate, and clean oceans, air, water, and/or food. The UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights website notes, “A safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment is integral to the full enjoyment of a wide range of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water and sanitation. Without a healthy environment, we are unable to fulfil our aspirations or even live at a level commensurate with minimum standards of human dignity. At the same time, protecting human rights helps to protect the environment. When people are able to learn about, and participate in, the decisions that affect them, they can help to ensure that those decisions respect their need for a sustainable environment.”

Beyond Toxics further lays out the rationale for viewing pesticide use and other issues through a human rights lens: “Human rights norms are not arbitrary. They are ethical standards recognized by citizens in our country and by peoples around the world as moral duties and protections that everyone should be able to expect from their governments. If governments, or businesses regulated by governments, violate these norms, they are violating formally recognized standards of justice.”

In 2017, the International Monsanto Tribunal — which was established by the Monsanto Tribunal Foundation, an initiative of civil society groups — litigated Monsanto to hold it accountable for crimes against nature and humanity, and ecocide. The presiding judges, having heard testimony from experts, witnesses, and victims in The Hague, Netherlands, home to the UN International Court of Justice, delivered their legal opinion on Monsanto’s impact on issues including human rights, food access, environmental health, and scientific research. Their conclusion: that Monsanto has engaged in practices that have negatively affected people’s right to a healthy environment, to food, and to health, and that if ecocide were recognized as an international criminal law, the corporation would possibly be found guilty.

On a different frontier, in the U.S. courts, the question of human rights in the face of the climate emergency is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Juliana v. United States, a lawsuit brought by a group of 21 young people. The plaintiffs’ case “demands that the government step up to protect today’s children, and future generations, from the worst effects of climate change. It says they risk being deprived of their ‘rights to life, liberty, property, and public trust resources by federal government acts that knowingly destroy, endanger, and impair the unalienable climate system that nature endows.’”

In April 2019, a report, The Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment in Climate Change Litigation, examined issues raised in lawsuits in the U.S., the Netherlands, Switzerland, Columbia, and Pakistan, and points to cautious optimism about the human rights bases of the suits. Environmental law professor at Wake Forest School of Law and former special rapporteur for Human Rights at the UN, John Knox, commented, “One of the valuable aspects of human rights is that they set out certain basic protections that we think are necessary for human dignity, equality and freedom. . . . And so while the challenges may change and evolve, the need to protect people’s basic human rights should remain a constant.”

The “rights” lens was posited, vis a vis pesticide use, way back in 2004 by noted scientist and activist Sandra Steingraber, PhD, who wrote for Beyond Pesticides about the issue of human rights and people’s unwitting exposure to chemicals in our air, food, and water. The human rights of farmworkers and their families, and child farm workers, are often acutely at issue because of intensive pesticide use. Beyond Pesticides advocates for a precautionary approach to the use of chemicals, and asserts that organic approaches to agriculture and land management represent the real solutions to the threats of chemically intensive production. It supports steps that bring the world closer to the day those are realized.

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

Source: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/health-and-environment_un-expert-urges-phase-out-of-hazardous-pesticides/45040316

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2019) A review of scientific literature urges for swift societal action on the collapse of insect populations worldwide, according to authors of a study. The authors point out that while there is a need for more research on the extent of the phenomenon as well as causal factors, there is currently sufficient evidence to spur and inform transformational policy in response to a definite worldwide crisis. The paper, Declines in insect abundance and diversity: We know enough to act now, provides a run-down of actions to take—from national policy to apartment balconies.

Recent reports name alarming drops in insect diversity and abundance, prompting the ominous label of “insect apocalypse.” Almost half of all insect species are rapidly declining, and a third are being threatened with extinction. The authors state, “Although there has been some criticism of specific studies, the overall trend is clear and the broad geographic reach is perhaps the most dire feature of the current crisis, as assessments from all continents except Antarctica reveal declines.”

The main culprits of insect demise are habitat loss and degradation, pesticides, and climate change. The authors note that it is less critical, at this juncture, to focus on the complexities of the individual issues than to understand that many factors act as a “firing squad” of stressors. “In many cases it will be difficult to identify the killing shot,” the authors write, “but we know the bullets are flying and we know where they are coming from.”

If the loss of insects—and all the critical services they provide—is to be avoided, “society must take steps at all levels to protect, restore, and enhance habitat for these animals across all landscapes, from wildlands to farmlands to urban cores.” The review calls for broad pesticide reform, including a ban on cosmetic lawn pesticides. The authors reiterate the need for improved management of connected habitats to maximize biodiversity at all levels. As aquatic insects have been noted as most vulnerable, protecting and restoring aquatic habitat is noted as perhaps a more urgent focus. More specific policy recommendations include:

1. Nations, states, provinces, and cities
   • Strengthen pesticide regulations and ban cosmetic use.
   • Retail companies should have clear labels to warn about the impact on nontarget insects.
   • Sub-national policy to protect insects should be pushed before national or international agreements are achieved.
   • Strong incentives to protect, enhance, and restore habitat.
   • Proper funding for conservation and management of land.
   • Begin conservation efforts before species are on the brink of extinction.
   • Mitigate and sequester carbon emissions; promote clean energy.
   • Increase habitat connectivity.
2. Working (agricultural) lands
   • Incorporate conservation of beneficial insect biodiversity.
   • Move away from monocultures toward a mosaic of low water use, climate friendly crops that both provide nutrition and nectar resources to local pollinators/beneficial insects.
   • Change from conventional, chemical intensive agriculture to ecological intensification, regenerative farming, and agroecology.
   • Reduce the use of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Use integrated pest management (IPM).
   • Farmers should be rewarded, supported, and encouraged to make changes.
   • Higher diversity of hardy, pest-resilient plant species in manufactured foods.
3.  Natural Areas
   • Managers of natural areas, parks, roadsides and rights of way should include conservation of native insect diversity as a goal.
   • Incorporate science/experts into management by working with university researchers, nonprofits, and community scientists.
   • Maximize native floral resources and practices that maximize benefits to insect diversity.
   • Consider the impact of management on insects while planning.
   • Connect habitats
4. Gardens, homes, and other private property
   • “Even small patches of habitat are important” – small areas in urban/suburban yard and parks, including parking strips, can be managed to benefit insects and allow for movement of species across landscapes.
   • Eliminate or minimize pesticide use.
   • Purchasing food grown using organic or sustainable methods helps foster change in the agricultural sector.
   • Advocate to encourage government bodies to protect and restore parks, natural areas, and local waterbodies.

Beyond Pesticides believes that “reducing” the use of toxic pesticides is a middle ground move that is inadequate to the crises we face. The success of organic agriculture proves that these chemicals are unnecessary to food production. Organic lawn and landscape management can create verdant green space on par with any chemical-intensive property.

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

For more information on how to get active in you state or community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective web page or give the office a call at 202-543-5450.

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

Source: Conservation Science and Practice

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2019)  “We were drooling excessively. My eyes would not stop watering,” Kaylynn Knull said to Denver ABC7, after she and her boyfriend filed suit against a Dominican Republic resort they claimed poisoned them with toxic pesticides. This year, the same resort, the Grand Bajia Principe, has had three Americans die on its premises. This is not the first time an island resort has been implicated in improper, potentially illegal pesticide use. In 2015, a family of four was poisoned by Terminix after the highly toxic fumigant methyl bromide was applied in a nearby room seeped in while they slept.

Ms. Knull told ABC7 that the couple’s symptoms began after rejecting a time share offer at the resort. “As soon as we came back to the room, we noticed it smelled like somebody had dumped paint everywhere. I was having the worst intestinal cramping I have ever experienced. It felt like a chainsaw going through my gut.” The couple booked the first flight off the island, and went to a doctor, who diagnosed them with “Likely Organophosphate poisoning.”

Organophosphates are acutely toxic insecticides that bind to and block the transmission of the acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme important to the proper functioning of our nerves. Blocking this enzyme causes a build-up of acetylcholine, which results in a range of symptoms, including diarrhea, dizziness, urination, headache, excessive salivation, and muscle twitches, as well as potentially more-serious ones, including respiratory muscle paralysis, seizures, respiratory failure, coma, and death. Late last year, a group of leading scientists called for a complete worldwide ban on organophosphates.

Recent reports of Americans dying under questionable circumstances in the same resort led Kaylynn to launch the lawsuit. “Because I honestly believe the truth needs to be told. This sounds way too similar at the same resort. I don’t know, I can’t keep my mouth shut,” she told ABC7.

The resort has released statements indicating that no recent deaths are connected. There are outstanding toxicology report being investigated by the CDC.

If the incidents do confirm pesticide poisoning, it would be another unfortunate, avoidable pesticide tragedy in the Caribbean. After the family in St John was poisoned by Terminix, the company was ordered to pay a $10 million criminal fine. And in April of last year, the applicator in the incident, Jose Rivera, was indicted by a federal grand jury for illegally applying methyl bromide in residential areas.

In countries like the Dominican Republic, not subject to U.S. pesticide laws and regulations, pesticide licensing and applicator training may not have the same level of oversight. According to the World Health Organization, pesticide poisoning incidents within the general population in developing countries is nearly double those recorded among U.S. farmers.

Before you stay at a resort, ask questions about their pest management practices, and consider alternative accommodations if you are not satisfied with the response. If you think you’re being poisoned, get to fresh air immediately and contact authorities. See Beyond Pesticides website for what to do in a pesticide emergency.

All cosmetic, landscape pesticide use is simply unnecessary. For most every pest problem, there are cultural practices and non or least-toxic alternatives that can effectively address pests. Start by building healthy soil through natural composts and fertilizers, and adjusting nutrients based on a soil test. When pest problems arise, currently identify the pest, monitor and set action levels so that infestations can be prevented. Find safer management techniques for a range of pests through Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage.

Source: Denver ABC7

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2019) A study finds that the interaction of a common honey bee parasite with neonicotinoid insecticides causes 70% reductions in overwintering honey bee survival. These results help to explain the unsustainable honey bee colony losses observed in recent decades.

Neonicotinoids (neonics) are a class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects. Studies show that neonicotinic residues accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants, and, given their widespread use and known toxic effects, there is major concern that neonics play a major contributing role in pollinator declines.

In the early 2000s, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) brought national attention to increased honey bee colony losses. During the same period that CCD and colony losses spiked, neonic prevalence skyrocketed, in large part due to the introduction of seed-delivered technologies. As of 2011, 34-44% of soybeans and 79-100% of maize hectares were preemptively treated with neonics. While CCD prevalence has decreased, colony loss rates (and systemic insecticide use) remain high. A 2018 national survey indicates that U.S. beekeepers currently experience an average annual colony mortality rate of 30.7%, double the pre-CCD baseline of 15% losses.

In the present study, researchers at the University of Bern underwent an investigation into potential mechanisms for these unprecedented and continued high colony losses. Specifically, the study authors sought to better understand the hazards wrought by co-exposures to the common parasitic mite, Varroa destructor, and ubiquitous systemic neonicotinoid insecticides. Using field-relevant concentrations of frequently occurring neonicotinoids, scientists exposed experimental honey bee colonies to the insecticides for a period of 42 days in the spring, when bees typically experience the highest pesticide exposures. Since most managed honey bee colonies are already co-habited by V. destructor, the scientists did not have to manipulate infestation. Instead, researchers looked for differences in response to neonicotinoid exposure depending on individual bees’ status – whether or not they were harboring mites – which varied naturally among individuals in each colony.

The authors were not only interested in observing immediate effects, but also in uncovering how this common combination might contribute to changes in long-term survival, of individuals and ultimately of whole colonies. To investigate long-term effects, researchers continued to monitor bees through the autumn following exposure, to capture effects on emerging winter bees.

What authors found validated their attention to long-term, co-exposure impacts. While neonicotinoid treatment alone did not produce a strong effect on worker body mass or survival, when combined with V. destructor parasitism, neonicotinoids did cause significantly reduced body weight and survival, compared to sole exposure to either stressor. However, these effects were not as pronounced in the summer immediately following spring exposure as they were in the autumn, when winter bees are reared. By the time autumn collections were completed, combined exposure to neonicotinoids and V. destructor were found to cause an astounding 70% reduction in survival, significantly surpassing the effects of either exposure alone. These results have strong implications for overall colony survival.

Honey bees born in the winter typically live longer than those born in the spring, and this longer-term survival is critical to the survival of the entire colony through to the next spring season. The majority of honey bee colony losses occur during this period of overwintering, when colonies are exposed to stressors that require a large population to buffer against. Colonies must have a strong population and sufficient stores of honey to survive the winter. When temperatures drop below the colony’s comfort zone, they rely on the vibration of thousands of clustered bee bodies to keep the hive temperature warm enough to survive. At the colony scale, the survival effects uncovered in the present study would destabilize these natural mechanisms for winter survival of the whole collective body.

Neonicotinoids by themselves already present an unacceptable hazard to bees. Multiple studies have confirmed that the levels of neonicotinoid pesticides that bees encounter in the environment are toxic enough to impair foraging, navigational, and learning behaviors, as well as suppress immune responses. These individual impacts are compounded at the level of social colonies, weakening collective resistance to common parasites, pathogens other pesticides, and thus leading to colony losses and mass population declines. In 2018, more than two hundred scientists co-authored a “Call to restrict neonicotinoids” on the basis of the bulk of evidence implicating neonicotinoids in mass pollinator and beneficial insect declines.

Native pollinators are similarly threatened by increased use of systemic insecticides. Recent studies of wild and managed pollinators in the field have shown significant colony and population declines as a direct result of neonicotinoid crop treatment and intensified pesticide use. A 2008-2013 study of wild bee populations across various land types in the US found the greatest declines in regions of concentrated corn production, concomitant with the tripling of neonicotinoid use in maize. Wild bee populations are declining by more than 30% in the US corn-belt, where neonicotinoid use is by now ubiquitous. A 23% decline in California butterfly species documented over the last few decades began sharply following the introduction of neonicotinoids to the state in 1995.

These newest findings add to the litany of harms wrought by neonicotinoids and other systemic insecticides, and help to explain the mass colony losses that began just as neonicotinoids came to prevalence. Beyond Pesticides holds the position that nothing short of a complete transformation to organic, least-toxic practices can begin to reverse the damage wrought by decades of unchecked poisoning. Stay abreast of new public health findings by reading Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog and Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. Join the movement to end destructive pesticide use by engaging at the local, state and federal levels to transform our agricultural system.

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

Source: Nature

(Beyond Pesticides, June 24, 2019) During “Pollinator Week,” last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency betrayed its responsibility to protect the environment and approved “emergency” uses of sulfoxaflor, a bee-toxic insecticide, in 11 states on millions of acres of crops that are attractive to bees. Sulfoxaflor is functionally identical to the neonicotinoid class of systemic pesticides, which are readily absorbed and translocated into the plant tissues, including its pollen and nectar. These insecticides are substantial contributors to the dramatic decline of pollinators and what is now recognized as a global insect apocalypse.

Ask Your Elected Members of Congress to Tell EPA that Its Actions Are Unacceptable and Must Be Reversed

In 2015, beekeepers sued to suspend the use of sulfoxaflor. A year later, in 2016, the chemical’s registration was amended with the specific exclusion of crops such as cotton and sorghum that attract bees, essentially acting as an aromatic draw to poison. However, EPA regularly utilizes the “emergency exemption” rule under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to circumvent these restrictions.

The Center for Biological Diversity reports, “Ten of the 11 states have been granted the approvals for at least four consecutive years for the same ’emergency.’ Five have been given approvals for at least six consecutive years.”

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has recognized the broad misuse of Section 18. A 2018 report from OIG notes that EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards.” Section 18 is intended to be utilized for unanticipated, urgent, and short-lived pest situations. Instead, it is harnessed as an effective, chronic workaround to introduce a pesticide on the market without FIFRA registration and appropriate restrictions on use.

Ask Your Elected Members of Congress to Tell EPA that Its Actions Are Unacceptable and Must Be Reversed

We cannot allow those we elect to Congress to remain silent as the crisis of the “insect apocalypse” advances at an escalating rate.

Letter to Congress

As our nation last week recognized “Pollinator Week”—a collective effort to focus on creatures vital to our environment and food systems—EPA was approving the use of the systemic pollinator poison sulfoxaflor that the court had previously decided was too dangerous for bees. I ask you to tell EPA that its decision to allow the “emergency use” of bee-toxic pesticides is unacceptable and contributes to the escalating insect apocalypse, as documented in the scientific literature. The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has recognized the broad misuse of Section 18. A 2018 report from OIG notes that EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards.” Section 18 is intended to be utilized for unanticipated, urgent, and short-lived pest situations. Instead, it is harnessed as an effective, chronic workaround to introduce a pesticide on the market without FIFRA registration and appropriate restrictions on use.

Thus, it is not surprising that, as reported by the Center for Biological Diversity, “Ten of the 11 states have been granted the approvals for at least four consecutive years for the same ‘emergency.’ Five have been given approvals for at least six consecutive years.”

Congressional oversight is needed to ensure that EPA fulfills its responsibility to completely review the health and environmental impacts of pesticides before allowing them to be used.

Please tell EPA that its decision to allow the “emergency use” of bee-toxic pesticides is unacceptable and must be rescinded.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2019) As Pollinator Week 2019 comes to a close, Beyond Pesticides is encouraging individuals to take steps in their backyard and community to Bee Protective of pollinator populations. The situation for pollinators and the insect word is dire, but there are a range of activities that can be taken in both the short and long term to shore up populations where you live. If you’re working towards positive change on pollinators, or simply want to know more about how to get involved, join the Pollinator Week #ProtectPollinators twitter chat today at 12 noon ET.

ManageSafe

Pest problems are a part of everyday life. But the first step in addressing them should never be reaching for a hazardous pesticide. To protect you and your family from pests while also protecting pollinators visit Beyond Pesticides Managesafe website.  Start by selecting the location of your pest problem – whether indoors or out, and click through to choose the pest in question. If the pest problem you’re dealing with isn’t listed there, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] for one on one assistance.

One of the biggest impacts we can make for the health of pollinators is to forgo the use of systemic insecticides in favor non-toxic and least toxic practices. Even after the European Union banned systemic neonicotinoids, studies found that pesticide use in suburban areas posed a high risk environment for pollinators. So rest assured, your extra efforts in seeking out safer pest management options will make a big difference in protecting bees and other pollinators.

Grow a Pollinator-Friendly Garden

Pollinators need diverse sources of pollen and nectar in order to maintain hive strength. Of course it’s also important that these sources be free of pollinator-toxic chemicals. For ideas on what you can plant to attract pollinators in your region of the country, see the Bee Protective Habitat Guide. And for sources of seeds and starts that aren’t pre-treated with toxic pesticides, see the Pollinator-Friendly Seed and Nursery Directory. And now, if you’re in the state of Minnesota, a bill recently signed by Governor Walz will reimburse homeowners up to 75% of the cost of converting a grass lawn to a diverse, flowering pollinator habitat.

Become a Backyard Beekeeper

If you’ve got a pesticide-free yard and garden, and the space to do it, consider taking the next step and becoming a backyard beekeeper. If you’re overwhelmed by the idea, consider partnering with a local beekeeper and hiring them to maintain your hive, either long term or until you’re comfortable with caretaking. You can also connect with national or state beekeeping organizations. See here for resources that cover most areas of the country. Some states have incentive programs in place to help upstart beekeepers. In Virginia, the Beehive Distribution Program will provide beehive equipment directly to eligible beekeepers (and begins accepting applications July 1, 2019).

Get Active in Your Community

Protecting pollinators in your home is a great step –and as you get more and more neighbors you to follow your lead, the benefits to pollinators and the environment will grow exponentially. Take it from the City of Amsterdam. An analysis of the City’s pollinator survey found that after the implementation of initiatives banning bee-toxic pesticides and planting native, pollinator-friendly flowers, at a time when insect populations are declining across the globe, the City saw an increase of 21 different bee species. These bees were not recorded in counts as recent as 1998, indicating that it is possible to grow and expand pollinator populations within a relatively short period of time.

For assistance in getting active in the protection of pollinators, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected]. Thank you to all who are working to protect pollinators during this special week.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2019) To mark National Pollinator Week (June 17-23), more than 10,000 people across the country are joining to demand that Kroger (NYSE: KR) help stop the extreme decline of pollinators. Customers are delivering letters to stores asking the nation’s largest conventional grocery store to eliminate pollinator-toxic pesticides from its food supply chain and increase domestic organic food offerings to help stop the catastrophic decline of pollinators and other insects.

Pollinators and other insects could go extinct within a century, threatening a “catastrophic collapse of nature’s ecosystems,” the first comprehensive global meta-analysis of insect decline states. This is largely due to the widespread use of neonicotinoids and other toxic insecticides in industrial agriculture.

“Systemic neonicotinoid insecticides and the broad range of pesticides that harm people and pollinators have no place in our food supply,” said Drew Toher, community resource and policy director at Beyond Pesticides. “Kroger customers are asking the company to be part of the solution to the pollinator crisis by eliminating hazardous pesticides and expanding organic options.”

“To avoid the ‘bee apocalypse’ it is critical that Kroger immediately commit to stop selling food with pollinator-toxic pesticides,” said Tiffany Finck-Haynes, pesticides and pollinators program manager at Friends of the Earth. “Kroger’s food supply chain is at risk if it does not take immediate action.”

Kroger lags behind its competitors on pesticide reduction. Costco updated its pesticide policy to encourage suppliers of fruits, vegetables and garden plants to phase out the use of chlorpyrifos and neonicotinoids, which will reduce farmworker and pollinator exposure.

“We ask Kroger to show leadership in corporate responsibility by adopting food safety policies that eliminate pesticides in the supply chain that are harmful to people and pollinators,” said Alexis Luckey, executive director, Toxic Free North Carolina.

In February, Friends of the Earth and allies released a report that found Kroger’s store-brand foods contain pollinator-toxic pesticides including glyphosate, organophosphates and neonicotinoids. A 2018 scorecard from Friends of the Earth found that most top food retailers, including Kroger, are failing to safeguard pollinators, like bees, and people from toxic pesticides.

“Bees and other pollinators are responsible for one out of three bites of food. By sourcing food grown with bee-killing pesticides, Kroger is threatening the future of food itself. It’s time for Kroger to protect pollinators by reducing pesticides in its supply chain,” said Katie Reilly, campaign manager at SumOfUs.

On average, beekeepers have lost 40 percent of their hives over the last decade and monarch butterflies have declined by more than 90 percent in under 20 years. The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization published a report warning that the diminishing state of the world’s biodiversity jeopardizes our food security, nutrition, environment and more.

“Maryland beekeepers have lost an unsustainable 60% of hives in recent years. The unprecedented mass die-offs of pollinators and other insects, as well as the rise in cancer, neurological diseases and autism, are clear indicators that the chemical-intensive industrial food system and the poisons applied to our foods are anything but life-giving,” said Bonnie Raindrop, legislative chair of Central Maryland Beekeepers Association.

What you can do today to take part in pushing the largest grocery retailer to go organic and save pollinators:

1. Swarm the phone lines: Call Kroger at 800-576-4377. Ask them to stop selling produce grown with pollinator poisons and offer organic options instead.
2. Spread the buzz on social media – share messages such as:
   • @Kroger brand food is grown with toxic pesticides that are driving the insect apocalypse. Tell Kroger to #SaveTheBees & our food system by phasing out food with bee-killing pesticides!
   • Pollinators contribute more than 24 billion dollars to the US economy — and @Kroger has the power to save them from the brink of extinction. Tell Kroger to stop selling food with bee-killing pesticides and increase their organic offerings! #SaveTheBees
3. Deliver a letter in person to your local store.
   • Link to letter (Print and sign!)
   • Find a store near you
   • Ask to talk to a manager and tell your story! Explain why the need to protect pollinators matters to you as a customer and as a concerned citizen.

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

Source: Friends of the Earth

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2019) On June 17, 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) once again approved “emergency” uses of sulfoxaflor, a bee-toxic insecticide, on millions of acres of crops that are attractive to bees. Sulfoxaflor is functionally identical to the neonicotinoid class of systemic pesticides, which are readily absorbed and translocated by the plant, including its pollen and nectar. These insecticides are substantial contributors to the dramatic decline of pollinators and what is now recognized as a global insect apocalypse.

In 2015, beekeepers sued to suspend the use of sulfoxaflor. A year later, in 2016 the chemical’s registration was amended with the specific exclusion of crops such as cotton and sorghum that attract bees, essentially acting as an aromatic draw to poison. EPA regularly utilizes the “emergency exemption” rule under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to circumvent these restrictions.

The Center for Biological Diversity reports, “Ten of the 11 states have been granted the approvals for at least four consecutive years for the same ‘emergency.’ Five have been given approvals for at least six consecutive years.”

The EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) has recognized the broad misuse of Section 18. A 2018 report from OIG notes that EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards.” Section 18 is intended to be utilized for unanticipated, urgent, and short-lived pest situations. Instead, it is harnessed as an effective, chronic workaround FIFRA registration and appropriate limits of use.

As Beyond Pesticides promotes “Pollinator Week”—a collective effort to focus on creatures vital to our environment and food systems—it is disheartening to report this continued wrongdoing from the branch of government charged with protecting the environment.

“The Trump EPA is allowing potentially catastrophic harm to imperiled insect populations,” says Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s hard to imagine how much more evidence could possibly be needed for the agency to wake up to the damage they are causing.”

Section 18 is not the only loophole used as a vector for the use of toxic pesticides and the profit of big agrichemical companies.

Sulfoxaflor and neonicotinoids are used as a chemical spray, but they can also be applied as a seed coating that permeates the plant as it grows and causes indiscriminate poisoning. In March, Beyond Pesticides created an action regarding this topic, stating, “EPA is misusing a regulatory loophole—the ‘treated articles exemption’—to allow systemic insecticides to be used in mass quantities, without regulating or labeling them as required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). EPA does not currently assess adverse effects on the environment and public health wrought by widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides delivered through seeds coated with the insecticides, resulting in widespread exposure to one of the most environmentally damaging classes of chemicals on the market.”

Spread the word about treated seeds and the impact of systemic insecticides by sharing Beyond Pesticides’ animated short Seeds that Poison. Further, you can tell your Congressional delegation to pressure EPA to close the “emergency” loophole in Section 18 and also fully regulate treated seeds.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2019) As the New York Times wrote in November 2018, “The Insect Apocalypse is Here.” But can we reverse it? Pollinator Week this year is overshadowed by a greater, all-encompassing crisis that spans the entire insect world. Scientists and researchers have identified three broad contributors to the crisis: pesticide use, habitat destruction, and climate change. It is evident that multi-national agrichemical industries, companies like Bayer Monsanto, DowDupont, Syngenta, and the umbrella organization Croplife, that pervade our food system share much of the blame. But through public pressure and consumer choice, we can shift towards alternative products and practices, improve biodiversity, and begin to repair the damage done by industrial agriculture.

Pesticide Use

Industrial agricultural often places pesticide use as the first tool in the toolbox of possible fixes to pest problems. This leads to a range of deleterious impacts both up and down the food chain, as both prey and predator succumb to the effects of broad spectrum pesticides. Although it makes common sense that pesticides kill off more than their target insect, the scale of the problem was not realized until a study was published in PLOS One by German researchers. It found, after 27 years of trapping flying insects, that overall biomass declined by 75% within the time frame of their study. Researchers identified agricultural intensification and pesticide use as a plausible cause of the results. As renown UK ecologist and study coauthor David Goulson, PhD, said at the time, “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon. If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

In a systematic review of insect declines made by researchers Francisco Sánchez-Bayo, PhD and Kris A.G. Wyckhuys, PhD, pesticide use was identified as a critical component of addressing the crisis at large. “A rethinking of current agricultural practices, in particular a serious reduction in pesticide usage and its substitution with more sustainable, ecologically-based practices, is urgently needed to slow or reverse current trends, allow the recovery of declining insect populations and safeguard the vital ecosystem services they provide,” they write.

Habitat Destruction

Clearing land for agriculture is ultimately a necessary undertaking in order to feed human populations. But most impactful is the rate of habitat elimination, and the use of the land cleared for farming. In many countries, including the US, tax incentives and priority has been given to the production of row crops such as corn and soy. But many of these crops don’t make it onto consumer’s plates, and are used as cattle feed, or in the production of biofuels.

The most salient and recognizable impact of industrial agriculture’s influence on habitat destruction has been with butterflies and moths. In the U.S., both western and eastern monarchs are in catastrophic declines. In the 1980s, over 10 million western monarchs overwintered in California. In the late 1990s, that number had shrunk to 1.2 million. This past winter recorded only 200,000 monarchs at breeding sites. Eastern monarchs have also seen their numbers vanish – from nearly one billion in the late 1990s, to only 93 million today.

These impacts can be traced to the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) cropping systems, the most extreme version of chemically-dependent, industrial agriculture. These crops have been developed either to produce their own insecticide, or withstand continuous spraying of highly toxic herbicides. In the case of monarchs, repeated, broad-scale herbicide applications have led to the loss of milkweed plants the butterflies require to lay their eggs.

Climate Change

In a study conducted in Puerto Rico, researchers found 90% declines of ground dwelling insects over a period of 35 years. The authors attribute these impacts to rapidly increasing temperatures on the island. “The number of hot spells, temperatures above 29C, have increased tremendously,” study co-author Bradford Lister, PhD told the Guardian. “It went from zero in the 1970s up to something like 44% of the days.”

Intensive farming practices are significant contributors to man-made climate change. Within the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10% of emissions are a result of agriculture. While gross production of CO2 is relatively low at 1%, the rest of the discharge comes in the form of crop and livestock emissions of methane and nitrous oxides from synthetic fertilizers. These chemicals are greenhouse gases with heat-trapping power hundreds of times more potent than CO2.

Averting the Apocalypse

The response to industrial agriculture must take into account the possibility for food production to result in these wide-ranging adverse impacts. But in each area, organic agriculture provides an answer to the industrial model. Not all organic farms are perfect, and weakening of organic regulations has the potential to permit more farms to operate a monoculture, industrial model, so advocates and consumers must remain vigilant in defense of organic principles.

But when organic principles are put into practice, soil sequesters carbon, land use fosters insect biodiversity, and pesticides are rarely employed. Some argue that organic is also a contributor to climate change. But studies show that organic farms sequester 13% more CO2 than conventional farms. A white paper published by the Rodale Institute in 2014,  Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming, argues that it is possible to sequester more than 100% of current annual CO₂ emissions by switching to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which are referred to in the paper as “regenerative organic agriculture.”

Organic detractors will also claim that organic farms require more land than conventional farms. But by reshaping lands currently under mono-crop production into diverse organic cropping systems, we can improve these agricultural areas so that they foster, rather than destroy, biodiverse insect populations.  Research finds that while conventional farms are often devoid of pest predators, organic farms can maintain their numbers.

Many will also claim that pesticides compatible with organic systems are just as or more dangerous as those used in conventional farming. This is simply untrue. In fact, the review process for allowed materials is much more rigorous in its protection of human health and biodiversity, resulting in the only real option we have to preserve life on this planet. Pesticides in organic must be evaluated for their impacts to health and the environment, essentiality, and compatibility with an organic system. With any pesticide in organic, its use is not allowed without an “organic systems plan” that, through soil management, the planting of buffer zones, cover crops, and trap crops, can avoid or even the use of the least-toxic pesticides approved under organic certification.

This Pollinator Week, help raise awareness of the role industrial agrichemical companies play in the promotion of industrial agricultural practices. By advocating for safer practices to grow food we eat, and purchasing organic whenever possible, we can stop making food production and insect abundance a zero-sum situation. For more actions you can take to honor pollinators and the insect world this Pollinator Week, see previous Daily News stories and the Bee Protective webpage.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 17, 2019) During Pollinator Week, starting June 17, ask your elected representative in Congress to support pollinators by co-sponsoring Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA). If they are already a cosponsor, use the occasion to thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

With the ongoing saga that is the pollinator crisis, we know who the villains of this story are: Bayer, Syngenta, Croplife America, and other multi-national companies that produce, promote, and protect pollinator-toxic pesticides.

But where are the heroes? 

Pollinator Week should be a week-long celebration of pollinators and the benefits they provide for people and the environment. Unfortunately, we must point out that the wrongdoers are running the show, and our fluttering friends are disappearing.

Chemical corporations use this week to greenwash their products by sponsoring outreach events that completely ignore their role in unprecedented pollinator declines. Don’t be fooled by their disguise.

We know that real solutions won’t come from a masked crusader. It won’t be a singular superhero that saves the day. In order to fight the fiendish forces behind the global insect apocalypse, we need a mass mobilization of everyday heroes. Heroes like you can inspire good in your elected officials.

Ask your elected representative in Congress to support pollinators by co-sponsoring Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA). If they are already a cosponsor, use the occasion to thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

By introducing this critical piece of legislation, U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jim McGovern (D-MA) have begun the fight to protect pollinators in the face of the vested economic interests of chemical companies, chemical service industry, and an unresponsive U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And as a result of pollinator heroes like yourself, they’ve already enlisted 52 cosponsors to join the effort.

The Saving America’s Pollinators Act (H.R.1337) will not only cancel specific bee-toxic pesticides, it will reshape the EPA process for permitting pesticides to be used in our communities and homes in the first place. Current law is filled with language that allows chemical lobbyists to unduly influence EPA decisions and loopholes that favor pesticide dependency instead of incentivizing alternatives like organic practices and products.

Under SAPA, pesticides that pose risks to pollinators will undergo a higher level of review by a board of unbiased pollinator experts. If these experts, who will not have conflicts of interest with the chemical industry, determine a pesticide is too toxic, then it will be removed or never allowed on the market in the first place.

SAPA creates a sustainable model for pollinator protection, including an annual, ongoing review on the health of pollinator populations. In the face of an EPA captured by chemical company corruption, SAPA will become an important tool to prevent ongoing chemical crimes against pollinators and the environment.

During Pollinator Week, starting June 17, ask your elected representative in Congress to support pollinators by co-sponsoring Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA). If they are already a cosponsor, use the occasion to thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

Stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides Facebook and Twitter for more heroic actions you can take during Pollinator Week 2019.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2019) Next week, June 17–22, marks Pollinator Week 2019, a celebration of the beauty and benefits these critical species provide, but also a call to action to protect pollinators and the natural world. Since United States Senate declared the first Pollinator Week in 2007, nearly every week since there has been new research published linking pesticides to pollinator declines. Yet the companies that produce pollinator-toxic pesticides, like Bayer and Syngenta, make use of this week to excuse their products from any culpability. Instead, they sponsor events and posters, discussing every threat to bees except those posed by the pesticides that make up their bottom line.

They are the villains in this story, but there is no superhero in line to save bees, butterflies, birds, and bats.  That’s why it’s up to you, everyday heroes that support protecting pollinators, to alert the public, and inspire good in elected officials.

We’ve outlined a week of actions aimed at educating and inspiring action to protect pollinators.

Monday
Support the New Saving America’s Pollinators Act (SAPA), HR1337. SAPA represents the best opportunity to enact meaningful changes at the federal level that will protect pollinators in the long term. This bill, reintroduced by Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jim McGovern (D-MA), would immediately cancel pollinator-toxic pesticides and institute a Pollinator Protection Board of experts to review other pesticides for their toxicity to pollinators. On Monday, help us raise awareness of this legislation and inspire your Congressional Representative to add to the current list of 53 cosponsors.

Tuesday
The Insect Apocalypse and the Magnitude of the Current Crisis. It’s not just pollinators that are in decline. More and more studies are showing that the entire insect world is under at global catastrophic risk. However, the root causes of these emergencies all relate to the global spread of industrial agriculture and its operations to displace and/or poison habitat, whether directly through the destruction of wild lands for farming, or the application of pesticides, or indirectly through their contributions to climate change. On Tuesday, help us fight back against totalitarian agricultural practices that place profit above the natural world.

Wednesday
Watch and Share the short film, “Seeds that Poison.” The majority of corn, soybeans, and other food crop seeds are coated with toxic pesticides. Many seeds and flowers marketed as “bee-friendly” at garden centers are also contaminated with systemic chemicals. These pesticides emerge from the seed through the plant, and invade soil biology and surrounding waterways, causing indiscriminate poisoning and contamination.  On Wednesday, share this video with your friends, neighbors, and community, and encourage them to purchase organic, uncoated seeds in their yards and gardens.

Thursday
Protect Pollinators in the Marketplace. Groceries sold in supermarkets like Harris Teeter, Fred Meyer, King Soopers, and other Kroger-owned stores can contain pollinator-toxic pesticides. Kroger has the ability to eliminate these highly toxic chemicals in the food products it sells, but it has so far refused to do so. On Thursday, we’ll be asking Kroger customers to visit their local stores and deliver a letter urging them to remove highly toxic pesticides from its supply chain and provide more affordable, organic options.

Friday
Promote organic, pesticide free zones and join the #ProtectPollinators twitter chat. To save pollinators, we need a positive vision for the future of food production and pest management. Organic agriculture and land management is a necessary part of that future – and every individual can do something in their own yard or community towards that effort. Show the world you’re protecting pollinators and model what’s possible without pesticides by placing a marker on the Pesticide Free Zone Map. Take the Pesticide Free Zone Survey, and upload a picture of your pollinator friendly, pesticide-free lawn, yard, or garden.

We’ll also be joining allies in a #ProtectPollinators twitter chat on Friday, June 21 at 12pm to call out industry malfeasance, and spread the word about the important efforts going on throughout the country – at the local, state, and federal level, to truly #protectpollinators.

Thank you to all who can engage in these efforts and be a pollinator hero this pollinator week. Stay tuned for more updates throughout next week!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2019) The U.S. allows the use of 85 pesticides that have been banned or are being phased out in the European Union, China or Brazil, according to a peer-reviewed study published last week by the academic journal Environmental Health.

In 2016, the U.S. used 322 million pounds of pesticides that are banned in the E.U., accounting for more than one-quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in this country, according to the study. U.S. applicators also used 40 million pounds of pesticides that are banned or being phased out in China and 26 million pounds of pesticides that are banned or being phased out in Brazil.

“It’s appalling the U.S. lags so far behind these major agricultural powers in banning harmful pesticides,” said Nathan Donley, PhD, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity and author of the study. “The fact that we’re still using hundreds of millions of pounds of poisons other nations have wisely rejected as too risky spotlights our dangerously lax approach to phasing out hazardous pesticides.”

The study compared the approval status of more than 500 pesticides used in outdoor applications in the world’s four largest agricultural economies: the United States, European Union, China and Brazil.

Report Highlights

• The U.S. EPA continues to allow use of 85 pesticides for outdoor agricultural applications that are banned or in the process of being completely phased out elsewhere, including 72 in the E.U., 17 in Brazil and 11 in China.
• The U.S. has banned only four pesticides still approved for use in the E.U., Brazil or China.
• Pesticides approved in the U.S. but banned or being phased out in at least two of the three other nations in the study include: 2,4-DB, bensulide, chloropicrin, dichlobenil, dicrotophos, EPTC, norflurazon, oxytetracycline, paraquat, phorate, streptomycin, terbufos and tribufos.
• The majority of pesticides banned in at least 2 of the 3 nations studied have not appreciably decreased in the U.S. over the past 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the past 10 years. Many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the U.S., and some have been further restricted by individual states.

The study concludes that deficiencies in the U.S. pesticide regulatory process are the likely cause of the country failing to ban or phase out pesticides that the E.U., China and Brazil have prohibited.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act gives the U.S. EPA significant discretion on which pesticides to cancel and makes the EPA-initiated, nonvoluntary cancellation process particularly onerous and politically fraught. This has, in effect, made pesticide cancellation in the U.S. largely a voluntary endeavor by the pesticide industry itself. As a result, pesticide cancellations in the U.S. are more often economic decisions rather than decisions made to protect human or environmental health.

“Bans are the most effective way to prevent exposures to highly hazardous pesticides and can spur the transition to safer alternatives,” said Dr. Donley. “A combination of weak laws and the EPA’s broken pesticide regulatory process has allowed the pesticide industry to dictate which pesticides stay in use. That process undermines the safety of agricultural workers and anyone who eats food and drinks water in this country.”

The U.S. EPA’s Pesticide Office has come under intense scrutiny in recent years as a result of numerous scandals, including:

• Ignoring its own established protocols to conclude that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, does not cause cancer, a finding that’s at odds with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, EPA’s Office of Research and Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;
• Its refusal to protect endangered species from pesticides, even when it’s been demonstrated by other federal agencies that use of the chemicals could put certain species at risk of extinction;
• The agency’s industry-motivated decision to overturn a long-overdue ban on chlorpyrifos despite compelling evidence that it harms the brains of children;
• The recent approval of the largest ever expansion of medically-important antibiotics for use in plant agriculture, ignoring strong concerns about increased antibiotic resistance from the FDA, CDC and public health officials;
• Having to change the instructions on the dicamba pesticide label twice after the drift-prone pesticide damaged a reported 5 million acres of crops, trees and backyard gardens over the last two years.
• Its liberal use of an “emergency” exemption loophole that allows unapproved pesticides to be used for routine, foreseeable situations for many consecutive years.

Source: Press Release, Center for Biological Diversity
Contact: Nathan Donley, PhD, Center for Biological Diversity, 917-717-6404, [email protected]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2019) A new study finds that the widespread insecticide fipronil causes transgenerational toxicity across generations of zebrafish. Fipronil, already known to be highly toxic to aquatic organisms, is now implicated in causing even more damage than previously thought. Even individuals who are not themselves directly exposed are shown to suffer from maternally transmitted toxic effects, including a more than doubled mortality rate.

The study, published in Environmental Pollution, tracks hatching, growth, and survival of offspring whose mothers were exposed to fipronil. Researchers exposed a total of 90 adult female zebrafish to environmentally relevant levels of fipronil, within the range of concentrations known to occur in U.S. surface waters, for a period of 28 days. After exposure, females were mated with unexposed males, and their offspring were monitored for hatching, growth, locomotor behavior, heart rate, toxicity and gene expression assays. The conclusion: maternal fipronil exposure induced multiple toxic effects in offspring, including a 30% reduction in hatch rates and, alarmingly, a more than doubling of the offspring mortality rate.

Fipronil is a broad-spectrum insecticide widely used for indoor and turf pest control in the U.S., and identified as a ubiquitous contaminant of U.S. surface waters. Fipronil is a known endocrine disruptor and has been shown to disrupt thyroid function in humans and wildlife.

These new results indicate that non-target organisms need not be directly exposed to fipronil to feel its effects. Offspring in the study were found to be contaminated with fipronil and its highly toxic degradation product, fipronil sulfone, at concentrations that varied in a dose-dependent manner with maternal treatment. Maternal transmission of toxins, authors report, may have caused some of the observed toxic effects. However, in addition to the more direct pathway of toxin transmission, the indirect disruption of maternal thyroid hormones likely played a major role in harming offspring.

Fipronil sulfone, a highly toxic derivative of fipronil, detected in offspring in the new study, has previously been shown to cause thyroid disruption in mammals. Adding to these findings, authors of the present study found that fipronil exposure, both direct and indirect, significantly lowered the levels of thyroid hormones. Because maternal thyroid hormones are known to be critical to embryonic development, the researchers believe that this mechanism of thyroid disruption to be one of the principle drivers behind the observed toxic effects.

Aquatic organisms are far from the only group threatened by continued use of fipronil and similar systemic insecticides. Fipronil has been heavily implicated in elevated bee toxicity and decline, acting to reduce behavioral function and learning performances in honey bees, for example. One 2011 French study reported that newly emerged honey bees exposed to low doses of fipronil and thiacloprid succumbed more readily to the parasite Nosema ceranae compared to healthy bees,  supporting the hypothesis that the synergistic combination of parasitic infection and high pesticide exposures in beehives may contribute to colony decline. An extensive overview of the major studies showing the effects of pesticides on pollinator health can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows  webpage.

Fipronil is also a threat to human health. It has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a Group C (possible human) carcinogen. A recent study of pesticide exposure among teenage girls living in Salinas Valley found that 84 out of 97 girls were routinely exposed to fipronil sulfide, a breakdown product of fipronil. As the authors note, fipronil “has exhibited oncogenicity and neurologic toxicity in animal studies,” raising concerns for 86.6% of children living in agricultural zones, whose routine exposure levels the study reflected.

These newest findings add to the litany of harms wrought by continued use of fipronil and similar toxic insecticides. Risk assessments cannot possibly capture the complex and nuanced ways in which the chemicals we allow to reach ubiquitous levels in our waterways end up causing irrevocable damage to countless organisms, and to ourselves. If fipronil can harm fish without directly touching them, what else can it do?

Join Beyond Pesticides in advocating for regulation and management that follows the precautionary principle. Stay abreast of the latest updates in science and regulation by following the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog. Become a member to gain access to a supportive network of like-minded individuals and organizations. Together, we can build a future free of toxic pesticides.

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

Source: Environmental Pollution

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2019) Genetically engineered (GE) wheat developed to tolerate repeated applications of Bayer Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide has been discovered in a farm field in Washington State. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has never approved a GE wheat variety for commercial production, making the incident a potential economic export risk. In the past, Asian and European countries have temporarily blocked purchases of U.S. wheat as a result of GE contamination. Organic and non-GE farmers are also at risk as any contamination with non-GE varieties can result in loss of certifications and price premiums.

According to USDA, the discovery was made on an unplanted wheat field, though officials have refused to disclose where in the state the GE plants were found. In 2013, a similar situation played out in Oregon after a farmer noticed wheat plants persisting after an application of Roundup. The discovery led to a number of lawsuits against agrichemical company Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer Cropscience.

At the time, Monsanto indicated that the incident was isolated, or potentially even the result of “sabotage.” An investigation by USDA was inconclusive, indicating the case “appears to be an isolated occurrence and that there is no evidence of any GE wheat in commerce.” However, the Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) noted it was, “unable to determine exactly how the GE wheat came to grow in the farmer’s field.”

Though wheat is commonly self-pollinating, it can be wind pollinated, with some studies showing the crop cross pollinating up to one and a half miles from where it’s planted.

Just as USDA wrapped up its 2013 Oregon investigation, GE wheat was again discovered growing at the Montana State University’s Southern Agricultural Research Center (SARC). In both instances, GE wheat field trials had occurred in the early 2000s, but not grown since then. USDA vowed to tighten up any GE wheat planting trials since those incidents.

The news comes in the midst of an ongoing trade war struggles for U.S. farmers, although APHIS is again insisting that there is no evidence GE wheat has entered commercial supplies. The US Wheat Associates and National Association of Wheat Growers said in a statement, “We cannot speculate or comment about any potential market reactions until we have a chance to discuss the situation in more detail with overseas customers.”

GE wheat is an unnecessary experiment with numerous downsides for average farmers and the marketplace as a whole, and upsides that would only further benefit multinational agrichemical companies like Bayer Monsanto. According to the Center for Food Safety, the U.S. is the world’s biggest exporter of wheat, an over $8 billion business. A 2005 study estimated that the wheat industry could lose $94 to $272 million if GE wheat were introduced. Past transgenic contamination episodes involving GE corn and GE rice have triggered over $1 billion in losses and economic hardship to farmers.

The risks are particularly pronounced for organic farmers. Under current regulations, organic and non-GE conventional farmers must pay for crop assurance or self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination. Placing the onus on these farmers that can lose their organic certification or price premium from industrial operations is the wrong approach to safeguarding the food supply. Not only are these farmers at risk of genetic drift from GE varieties, increased use of herbicides like Roundup means a higher likelihood that herbicides will drift, which can damage crops and also lead to a loss of certification.

Organic farming represents a viable, scalable path towards a safer food supply and better trade relations for U.S. agricultural exports. While industry-captured regulatory agencies like USDA continue to promote the benefit of GE agriculture and downplay its many risks, farmers, farmworkers, the economy, the environment and public health suffer. Learn more about the risks of GE herbicide tolerant crops by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering webpage.

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

Source: Bloomberg, Morning AgClips

(Beyond Pesticides, June 10, 2019) On May 20, U.S. Representative Nydia Velazquez, with 18 co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 2854, “To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use of neonicotinoids in a National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes.” The bill follows an August 2018 Trump administration announcement that reversed a 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decision to ban neonicotinoid insecticides on National Wildlife Refuges.

Tell members of Congress to protect biodiversity by co-sponsoring HR 2854, which reinstates the 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ban on neonicotinoid pesticide use in wildlife refuges that was reversed by the Trump administration in 2018.

The administration’s action threatens not only pollinators, but contributes to the attack on biodiversity worldwide. “These pollutants upset the delicate ecosystems of our Wildlife Refuges and they have no place in our public lands,” said Rep.Velázquez. “The ban’s revocation comes as mounting evidence suggests the chemical has damaging environmental effects on bees and other pollinators, undermining the national wildlife system,” she continued.

In 2014, FWS announced that all National Wildlife Refuges would join in the phase-out of neonics (while also phasing out genetically engineered crops) by January 2016. FWS “determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can potentially affect a broad spectrum of non-target species is not consistent with Service policy. We make this decision based on a precautionary approach to our wildlife management practices and not on agricultural practices.” This move was not only intended to protect honey bees that have suffered average losses above 30% since 2006, but also the federally threatened and endangered pollinators that live in National Wildlife Refuges.

However, it is not just pollinators who are affected. Recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance, leading entomologists to speak of an “insect apocalypse.” Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60 over the past 40 years –there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insect abundance has declined over 75% in the last 27 years, according to new research published by European scientists in PLOS One. The dramatic drop in insect biomass has led to equally dramatic pronunciations from highly respected scientists and entomologists. “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon,” study coauthor David Goulson, Ph.D. of Sussex University, UK, told The Guardian. “If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

Insects play important roles in food webs –most song birds, for example, depend on insects during the breeding season, at least. Insects are important decomposers –Australia had to import dung beetles to handle the waste problem caused by the importation of cattle. They contribute to the health of soils. The loss of insect abundance poses cascading effects at all ecosystem levels.

Neonicotinoids also pose a direct threat to non-insect wildlife, including birds. Birds and other wildlife are mobile, moving in and out of crop fields without regard for pesticide treatments. Birds, in particular, absorb pesticide sprays and vapors through respiration, as well as orally in food and preening and dermally by walking in sprayed fields.

It is more important than ever to ban neonicotinoids in National Wildlife Refuges, which should be refuges from toxic chemical use.

Tell members of Congress to protect biodiversity by co-sponsoring HR 2854, which reinstates the 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ban on neonicotinoid pesticide use in wildlife refuges that was reversed by the Trump administration in 2018.

Sponsors include:

Sponsor: Nydia Velazquez (D-NY); Co-sponsors: Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Matt Cartwright (D-PA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Deb Haaland (D-NM), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Eleanor Norton (D-DC), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Aumua Amata Radewagen (R-ASO), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Bennie Thompson (D-MS)

[If your Representative has already co-sponsored this legislation, the letter below will be sent as a thank you.]

 Letter to U.S. House of Representatives

I am writing to ask you to urge you to co-sponsor H.R. 2854, “To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use of neonicotinoids in a National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes.” The bill follows an August 2018 Trump administration announcement reversing a 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) decision to ban neonicotinoid insecticides on National Wildlife Refuges. The legislation requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Interior Secretary David Bernhardt to reinstate the ban on neonicotinoid pesticides in wildlife refuges. The administration’s action threatens not only pollinators, but biodiversity of the whole planet.

In 2014, FWS announced that all National Wildlife Refuges would join in the phase-out of neonics (while also phasing out genetically engineered crops) by January 2016. FWS “determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can potentially affect a broad spectrum of non-target species is not consistent with Service policy. We make this decision based on a precautionary approach to our wildlife management practices and not on agricultural practices.” This move was not only intended to protect honey bees that have suffered average losses above 30% since 2006, but also the federally threatened and endangered pollinators that live in National Wildlife Refuges. Insect abundance has declined over 75% in the last 27 years, according to new research published by European scientists in PLOS One. The dramatic drop in insect biomass has led to equally dramatic pronunciations from highly respected scientists and entomologists. “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon,” study coauthor David Goulson, Ph.D. of Sussex University, UK, told The Guardian. “If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

However, it is not just pollinators who are affected. As summarized in a New York Times magazine article in November, “The Insect Apocalypse is Here,” recent research has found dramatic drops in overall insect abundance. Various studies have found reductions of up to a factor 60, over the past 40 years –there were 60 times as many insects in some locations in the 1970s. Insects play important roles in food webs –most song birds, for example, depend on insects during the breeding season, at least. Insects are also important decomposers –Australia had to import dung beetles to handle the waste problem caused by the importation of cattle. They contribute to the health of soils. The loss of insect abundance poses cascading effects at all ecosystem levels.

Neonicotinoids also pose a direct threat to non-insect wildlife, including birds. Birds and other wildlife are mobile, moving in and out of crop fields without regard for pesticide treatments. Birds are particularly vulnerable, having high metabolic and respiratory rates. They absorb pesticide sprays and vapors through respiration, as well as orally in food and preening and dermally by walking in sprayed fields.

It is more important than ever to ban neonicotinoids in National Wildlife Refuges, which should be refuges from toxic chemical use.

Please consider co-sponsoring H.R. 2854, “To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to prohibit the use of neonicotinoids in a National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes.”

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2019) Fruit orchards and vineyards endure some of the most intensive chemical management in all of agriculture. What has not been investigated — until now — is how pesticide drift from such agricultural sites may be affecting nearby public spaces. A recent, first-of-its-kind study out of northern Italy tested 71 public playgrounds near to apple orchards and vineyards in four valleys of the North Tyrol, and finds that 45% are contaminated with a single pesticide, and 24% by more than one. Study authors note that the playground contamination will likely grow worse over the course of the growing season. This would likely amplify the impacts of such chemical trespass on nearby public spaces, never mind the varieties of harm to the sites themselves and the food produced on them. Organic agriculture, of course, remedies all these concerns.

The study randomly chose 71 public playgrounds in the four South Tyrolean regions, and analyzed grass samples for potential contamination by 315 different pesticides. Because pesticides applied to agricultural fields, orchards, and vineyards are easily volatized, carried aloft by wind, and/or washed by rain off of the target site, the study also evaluated the impacts of those (and other) factors on the degree of pesticide contamination at playgrounds.

Published in Environmental Sciences Europe in early May, the investigation, which was conducted at the start of the growing season, discovered that 92% of the dozen pesticides detected are endocrine disrupting (ED) compounds. EDs mimic the actions of endogenous hormones, and are linked to a variety of human health anomalies, including reproductive dysfunction and neurodevelopmental distortion, as well as cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and childhood and adult cancers. The economic health costs associated with the use of endocrine disrupting chemicals were recently identified as $340 billion annually.

The compounds found across the four study sites were the pesticides phosmet, imidacloprid, chlorpyrifos-methyl, methoxyfenozide, and cypermethrin; fungicides fluazinam, dodine, difenoconazole, penconazole, tetraconazole, and penthiopyrad; and the herbicide oxadiazon. Among those, only dodine has no association with endocrine function. Cypermethrin, oxadiazon and tetraconazole are confirmed endocrine disruptors; chlorpyrifos-methyl, fluazinam, penthiopyrad, and methoxyfenozide are suspected endocrine disruptors; and difenoconazole, imidacloprid, penconazole, and phosmet are endocrine-active substances, or potential endocrine disruptors.

The authors identify, as a limitation of the study, the fact that it analyzed only active ingredients, and did not consider impacts of metabolites and adjuvants, “although these have also been classified as highly toxic.” They add, “Not much is known about effects by exposure to multiple substances. It is known, however, that the exposure to an increasing number of EDs in the environment is associated with an increasing incidence of hormone-dependent cancers like breast, prostate and thyroid and a decreasing sperm quality in the European and U.S. population.”

This investigation was undertaken because researchers recognized that children’s ED exposures are of especial concern, given that — if they happen during critical developmental windows — they increase the risk of adverse health effects, as compared with adult outcomes. Children play on grass and soil at playgrounds, and may have additional exposure risk through inhalation. Too, public spaces such as playgrounds are frequented by more-vulnerable people, such as children and pregnant women, and exposure times at these sites may be protracted.

Peter Clausing, Dr. sc. agr.,co-author and toxicologist of Pesticide Action Network Germany, comments, “I can imagine that people reading our study will respond that it is not relevant if grass samples are contaminated with pesticides because children do not eat grass. However, the discovery that 92% [of] pesticides found are considered to be endocrine-active substances should worry us. These substances can alter early development, which is an especially sensitive phase for children.” First author Caroline Linhart points to additional utility of their research: “Of course a prediction model always features a range of uncertainty, but the model could considerably contribute to a better pesticide application model, as well as to decrease pesticide drift.”

The published research additionally notes that, “For children, the risk for cancer is even associated with parental exposure to occupational or non-occupational pesticide. Evaluations and measurements of potential hazards for children are essential to conduct health risk assessments of pesticides. For that it is crucial to consider the often neglected, low-dose and diffuse pesticide exposure via spray drift. While this inconspicuous exposure might not yield great amounts of pesticides, the cumulated effect of multiple pesticides might pose risks for human health.”

The study examined: playground distance from agricultural sites, the number of nearby agricultural fields, rainfall, wind direction and speed, and solar irradiance (level of sunlight exposure). Study analyses demonstrated that closer proximity to agricultural sites, rainfall, and strong winds all correlated with higher pesticide concentrations. The authors posit that to reach a “zero pesticide contamination level,” the distance between playgrounds and agricultural sites ought to be at least 100 meters, although they also acknowledged that under strong wind conditions, pesticides may drift 300 meters away and potentially farther.

Koen Hertoge, study leader of the Pesticide Action Network Europe, concludes that current efforts to mitigate pesticide drift are insufficient, and says that comprehensive pesticide monitoring systems should be in place in public spaces nearby to agricultural sites where intensive pesticide use happens. He notes, “These climatic aspects are usually ignored when assessing the environmental impact of pesticides. . . . The EU Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides . . . is up for revision soon (by 2019, but it could be postponed depending on Member States‘ implementation of National Action Plans). We call on this revision for pesticides to finally be banned, rather than ’seriously limited,‘ in public areas.”

As Beyond Pesticides has maintained, society needs to do far better in protecting people from pesticides by reducing and, ultimately, eliminating their use, and transitioning to organic means. It has written about the threats related to aerial spraying and pesticide volatilization and drift, in particular. Beyond Pesticides covers and advocates for alternate approaches — optimally, organic ones — to the use of pesticides for agriculture and other land management. As a recent Daily News Blog noted, organic agriculture is on the rise as people increasingly recognize the serious risks of our chemically intensive conventional approaches to food production. Learn more through the Daily News Blog and the Beyond Pesticides journal, Pesticides and You.

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

Sources: https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2019/05/children%E2%80%99s-playgrounds-contaminated-pesticides-apple-and-wine-orchards and https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-019-0206-0

Bromeliads growing on trees in tropical regions provide habitat for a range of insects //Photo credit Edd Hammill

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2019) Pesticide use eliminates pest predators and permits mosquito populations to flourish, according to research conducted in Costa Rica by scientists at Utah State University. The new study, “Adaptation to agricultural pesticides may allow mosquitoes to avoid predators and colonize novel ecosystems,” highlights the dangers of human intervention through broad scale pesticide applications, and the urgent need to consider ecosystem-wide impacts before allowing chemicals to be placed on the market.

As lead study author Edd Hammill, PhD, told National Geographic, the investigation got its start after he observed higher numbers of mosquitoes in orange groves he was visiting, when compared to other, non-agricultural areas. “We felt like we were getting a lot more mosquito bites in plantations than in pristine areas and started to wonder why,” noted Dr. Hammill.

The study focuses first on the role that bromeliads, a tropical flowering plant that grows on tree branches, play in affecting mosquito populations. Mosquitoes use the water that these plants catch in between their leaves to lay eggs. Many other species are found to lay eggs within the leaves, including the top-level predator in this system, the damselfly.

Dr. Hammill’s team looked at community composition within bromeliad leaves at chemical-dependent orange plantations, organic groves, and what they considered “pristine” regions unspoiled by any agricultural production. The results were startling.

Pristine areas had 58% fewer mosquitoes than the chemical-dependent orange groves surveyed. Moreover, chemical-dependent groves have zero damselfly predators within any bromeliad plant sampled; none at all. While organic orange groves have lower levels of damselflies detected than pristine areas, they still contain a viable population of the species.

Researchers want to find out why this might be the case. Discussions with conventional farmers in the region reveal that the organophosphate insecticide dimethoate has been used for up to several decades to manage psyllid pests.

To determine whether pesticide resistance is involved, researchers tested and compared mosquitoes from chemical-intensive groves and pristine areas. Mosquitoes within chemical-dependent groves are able to endure significantly higher levels of pesticide exposure, up to ten times (10x) more than mosquitoes find in pristine areas. Although no damselflies are found in chemical-dependent groves, those in pristine areas were tested for their resistance. While damselflies are more resistant to dimethoate than mosquitoes found in pristine environments, they are significantly more sensitive than mosquitoes that had learned to tolerate the conditions at chemical-dependent farms.

Based on these data, researchers have determined that two forces are driving higher mosquito numbers in chemical-dependent orange plantations: evolutionary changes and predator release. The evolutionary driver is a result of differences in biology between mosquitoes and damselfly predators. Life cycles of the mosquitoes studied are 12 to 24 times shorter than damselflies, providing mosquitoes with a faster opportunity to develop resistant individuals. Given this short life cycle, even a small number of resistant mosquitoes can rapidly repopulate an area with their improved genetics.

Damselflies just cannot catch up in time. This further increases the dominance of mosquitoes in an ecosystem. Without predators to tamp down their populations, mosquitoes are able to colonize new habitats. In this case, mosquitoes in chemical-dependent groves are able to lay eggs in larger bromeliads, whereas in pristine areas the presence of damselflies and other predators make this highly unlikely.

The authors conclude that there is a need to, “not only study the effects of [a] stressor on individual species, but consider how stressor-mediated impacts on species affect the ecological role the species performs.”

Beyond Pesticides is working to draw increased attention to the myriad of ecological impacts pesticides can cause beyond acute effects on one species. These are known as “trophic cascades.” In an article published in summer 2018 Pesticides and You, Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through the Ecosystem, a discussion of similar impacts from conventional pesticide use leads to the conclusion that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must develop a “No Observed Adverse Effect Level” for ecosystem-wide effects, and remove from the market pesticides that cause these complex, cascading impacts.

This study should be a lesson for vector control operations in any area of the world, as the concepts elucidated in the study are likely to hold true in a range of ecosystems. Highly toxic synthetic pesticides should be the absolute last tool in the toolbox for pest managers, and considered only when there is an imminent public health threat. Otherwise, they are likely to do more harm than good.

For more information on safer community mosquito management, see Beyond Pesticides Mosquito and Insect-Borne Diseases webpage, including the Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy for Decision Makers and Communities.

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

Source: National Geographic, Oecologia (peer-reviewed journal)

Help Protect the Integrity of Organic Standards

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2019) Earlier this week, the National Organic Program (NOP) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a memo that will put a stop to the practice of allowing organic certification for container systems produced on land managed with substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate, which are not permitted in organic production. The decision comes after broad opposition to this NOP allowance was vociferously expressed by a cross section of commenters at the April meeting of the National Organic Standards Board. The head of NOP, Jenny Tucker, in response to questions, attempted to clarify her previous comment to farmers indicating that the practice met organic standards, but instead incited outrage at the NOSB meeting by refusing to reject the use glyphosate in container growing operations. The NOP decision is not retroactive for operations earlier allowed to use the chemicals.

The NOP memo clarifies and establishes stricter adherence to a pre-existing rule written into the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. While this clarification represents a victory for those fighting to keep organic strong, the certification of hydroponic and other container systems as organic continues to present a major challenge for the integrity of a system whose founding law mandates increasing soil fertility, conserving biodiversity, and building soil organic matter.

The new NOP memo clarifies a longstanding rule, known as the “three-year transition period,” as applied specifically to organic crop container systems. The rule states that to be considered as organic under OFPA, crop container systems must be produced on land that has been managed without synthetic chemicals or other prohibited substances, for at least three years immediately preceding harvest.

Without this three-year transition period, organic container system producers could, and did, benefit from the organic label without substantively transitioning any of their land to organic management. Foods labeled as “organic” could be – and have been to this point – produced in containers on land drenched with prohibited pesticides, including the infamous herbicide glyphosate. And, until Monday, the National Organic Program endorsed such behavior.

As reported by the Real Organic Project, “NOP head Jenny Tucker told the National Organic Coalition on several occasions that NO transition time is required for hydroponic to be certified.” In a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administrator Bruce Summers, the Organic Trade Association remarked, “[R]ecent reports indicate the NOP may be allowing its certifying agents to permit the use of glyphosate on certified organic farms that grow crops in containers.” It appears that in their dealings with organic certifiers, NOP consistently let silence take the place of regulation. In a letter to inspectors, staff, and container based growers, organic certifier Americert stated that the NOP was aware of their own and several other certifiers’ zero-transition practices, and provided no firm guidance as to whether they should abide by the OFPA rule. Americert concluded, “It appears that on this issue, we are left on our own to determine how to proceed.”

Fortunately, certifiers will no longer be left on their own, as the new guidance provides firm grounding for all future container system certification to abide by organic land management practices, for at least three years leading up to organic production. The decision to firm up the transition rule comes after appeals by the Organic Trade Association, the National Organic Coalition, the Organic Farmers Association, Beyond Pesticides, and other allied advocates for organic integrity.

While NOP’s clarification and stricter enforcement come as a welcome victory, their firm stance will only apply to as-yet uncertified operations. The memo explicitly excludes previously certified operations from regulation, grandfathering in even those operations whose land has been treated with prohibited chemicals within the last three years, including up to the very day of certification.

The confusion over how to organically manage container systems arose in the first place due to the relative novelty of allowing any container systems to be considered as “organic.” Beyond Pesticides and allied advocates for organic integrity question the basis for certifying any hydroponic operation as organic, regardless of their transition practices.

Hydroponic plants are grown without soil and fed entirely through manufactured nutrient solutions. Hydroponic operations rely on nutrient inputs that do not return to the system. Whether or not these inputs are organic products, the hydroponic practices themselves, as noted by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) in a recent rulemaking petition, fulfill zero out of the three core requirements that define “organic production” in OFPA: to “foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.” Soil is integral to organic production. Under OFPA, to be called organic, producers must engage in practices that actively support the rich, living biodiversity of the soil that sustains future production.

The U.S. is the only developed country still allowing hydroponics to fall under the organic label. Canada and Mexico prohibit hydroponics from organic, and the European Parliament voted to end the organic certification of hydroponic products in April 2018. With the U.S. regulatory gates open, industrial hydroponic operations have access to flood the organic market and, longtime organic producers warn, to push soil-based organic farmers out of business. “Hydroponic producers getting the benefit of the organic label without actually doing anything to benefit the soil undermines the standard and puts all soil-based organic farmers at an untenable economic disadvantage,” stated Kate Mendenhall of the Organic Farmers Association.

Organic growers and advocates warn that without a serious effort to protect it, the organic label could become wholly misleading with respect to its central tenets: prohibition of synthetic chemicals and commitment to soil improvement and biodiversity conservation.

Join Beyond Pesticides in the fight to protect organic integrity, and ultimately, to protect our future. Wholescale agricultural transformation is urgently needed to regain lost ground and ensure a future for ourselves and our children. Watch Jay Feldman’s (executive director of Beyond Pesticides) talk on organizing for organic integrity at the Real Organic Project March symposium. Contribute to the movement to protect the organic label by joining Beyond Pesticides. Stay abreast of new legal and regulatory developments through Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog.  To stay engaged with the organic rulemaking process, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

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

Sources: Real Organic Project, National Organic Standards Board