(Beyond Pesticides, January 28, 2019) A  September 2018 report from the Office Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified issues important to protecting health and the environment. The EPA’s response to the report left many of these problems unresolved.

Measures and Management Controls Needed to Improve EPA’s Pesticide Emergency Exemption Process (Report No. 18-P-0281, September 25, 2018), finds that the agency’s practice of routinely granting “emergency” approval for pesticides through its Section 18 program does not effectively measure risks to human health or the environment.

Tell Congress to Ask the EPA Administrator to Close the “Emergency” Pesticide Use Loophole, and Adopt All the Recommendations of the Office of the Inspector General.

Under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA has the authority to approve the temporary emergency use of unapproved pesticides if the agency determines the pesticide is needed to prevent the spread of an unexpected outbreak of crop-damaging insects, for example. But this provision has been widely abused.

The inspector general recommends EPA “develop and implement applicable outcome-based performance measures to demonstrate the human health and environmental effects of the EPA’s emergency exemption decisions.”

EPA disagreed and said, [T]he development of an outcome-based performance measure for the Section 18 emergency exemption process was neither appropriate nor feasible.” EPA’s response demonstrates that the current Section 18 program, which allows chronic overuse of emergency exemptions, is neither appropriate nor adequately protective of public health.

OIG’s report finds “significant deficiencies in the OPP’s [Office of Pesticide Programs] online database management, in its draft Section 18 emergency exemption standard operating procedure and application checklist, and in its reports to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.” Specifically, the report notes EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards. The program office also does not have comprehensive internal controls to manage the emergency exemption data it collects,” and “OPP does not consistently communicate emergency exemption information with its stakeholders.”

Beyond Pesticides has firmly opposed the current use of Section 18. Through the Section 18, or emergency exemption program, EPA allows the use of pesticides that are not registered for a particular crop, or in some cases not registered for use at all, but making progress toward registration. EPA can set tolerances for affected crops that are time-limited, usually for the season in which they are allowed or sometimes longer. For example, in March 2017 EPA announced it is allowing residues of antibiotics in Florida orange juice, after approving an emergency exemption for the antibiotics streptomycin and oxytetracycline –allowing their use for a bacterial disease, citrus greening (Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) bacterium that causes Huanglongbing), in Florida citrus crops through December of 2019, and further exacerbating bacterial resistance. Organic citrus growers use cultural practices, soil fertility focused on soil biology, and biological controls to manage the disease.

Beyond Pesticides has found a growing number of requests for Section 18 emergency exemptions from states over the last ten years for the use of pesticides to control various resistant weed and insect pests that do not meet the criteria for “non-routine” or “emergency” conditions set forth in FIFRA, and/or whose pesticide use would pose elevated risks to the environment. Additionally, a number of requests and subsequent, almost annual, issuance of Section 18 exemptions essentially replace one Section 18 exemption with another. Continuous exemptions for the same or similar pest problem over a number of years indicates that the case is not “non-routine” and undermines the intent of the program, which is to provide temporary relief from unforeseen problems.

A Center for Biological Diversity report finds as of 2017, EPA had granted 78 “emergency” exemptions for sulfoxaflor, a pesticide that the EPA itself concluded is highly toxic to bees. EPA has approved emergency exemptions to allow sulfoxaflor use on more than 17.5 million acres of U.S. cotton and sorghum farms – use sites where the pesticide is not currently registered. Other exemptions are given to states to combat herbicide-resistant weeds, which have proliferated across the U.S. over the last decade and should not be considered an “emergency” situation; resistance is a predictable consequence of pesticide use.

Reoccurring problems like weed resistance to herbicides should be a wake-up call for farmers and EPA to reevaluate and implement alternative biological and cultural management practices for the long-term prevention of diseases, ending the reliance on the “chemical fix” that will exacerbate the problem when pest resistance to the chemical inevitably occurs.

Tell Congress to Ask the EPA Administrator to Close the “Emergency” Pesticide Use Loophole, and Adopt All the Recommendations of the Office of the Inspector General,

Letter to Congress

When the Office Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued its report in September, 2018 on emergency pesticide uses, the agency’s response left unresolved many issues important to the protection of health and the environment. The report, Measures and Management Controls Needed to Improve EPA’s Pesticide Emergency Exemption Process (Report No. 18-P-0281, September 25, 2018), concludes that the agency’s practice of routinely granting approval through its Section 18 emergency exemption program for pesticide use does not effectively measure risks to human health or the environment. Under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA has the authority to approve the temporary emergency use of unapproved pesticides if the agency determines the pesticide is needed to prevent the spread of an unexpected non-routine outbreak of crop-damaging insects, for example.

 The Inspector General recommends that EPA “develop and implement applicable outcome-based performance measures to demonstrate the human health and environmental effects of the EPA’s emergency exemption decisions.” EPA disagreed and said, “[T]he development of an outcome-based performance measure for the Section 18 emergency exemption process was neither appropriate nor feasible.” EPA’s response demonstrates that the current Section 18 program, which allows chronic overuse of emergency exemptions, is neither appropriate nor adequately protective of public health.

 OIG’s report finds “significant deficiencies in the OPP’s [Office of Pesticide Programs] online database management, in its draft Section 18 emergency exemption standard operating procedure and application checklist, and in its reports to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.” Specifically, the report notes EPA “does not have outcome measures in place to determine how well the emergency exemption process maintains human health and environmental safeguards. The program office also does not have comprehensive internal controls to manage the emergency exemption data it collects,” and “OPP does not consistently communicate emergency exemption information with its stakeholders.”

 The ”emergency” use of unregistered pesticides under the current EPA program threatens public health and the environment. Please urge the EPA Administrator to comply with all the OIG recommendations immediately.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely

(Beyond Pesticides, January 25, 2019) The partial government shutdown–now in its second month–is disrupting federal oversight of food safety for various pathogens and pesticides. Labs are shuttered, many government agency employees are furloughed, and those still working are doing so without pay. The ongoing obstruction to government assessment of the food supply puts U.S. consumers at risk.

Workers from the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) have expressed concerns about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) AMS Pesticide Data Program. This program samples, tests, and reports about pesticide residues in U.S. agricultural commodities, with a focus on chemicals that could cause problems for infants and children. Peter Kyriacopoulos, senior director of public policy at APHL, stated that only one of the ten public health laboratories is planning on continuing testing samples during the shutdown without compensation.

Additionally, APHA has reported issues regarding DNA analysis of food samples involved in foodborne outbreaks. DNA samples from sick patients are used to trace back the source of outbreaks and lead to assessment of food production facilities. While outbreak investigations are headed by the currently fully-operational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), interdepartmental research involving the USDA and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is delayed due to furloughed employees and lack of funding for laboratories.

A December news release from USDA outlined the list of inspection functions during the lapse of funding beginning January 1, 2019 to include: Meat, poultry, and processed egg inspection services, grain and other commodity inspections, as well as import/export inspections for pests.

A briefing held by the House Congressional Food Safety Caucus on Wednesday, January 16 named alarming realities of the impact of the shutdown. According to U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), only about a third of FDA’s regular 160 weekly inspections are being carried out. 200 of the total 550 food investigators are tasked with working during the shutdown. They are doing so without pay, and are using personal funds for travel expenses. Overall, FDA has furloughed 41% of its workforce (~17,000 employees). Ninety percent of the USDA’s 9,500 Food Safety and Inspection Service employees are working without pay. Thomas Gremillion of the Consumer Federation of America stated, “Businesses know there aren’t any unannounced inspections happening now. The incentive structure is being eroded.”

FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD tweeted on January 22nd: “We’ve received multiple inquiries about which critical food operations continue during the shutdown. Examples of the work that we’re still doing include: 1) High-risk domestic food surveillance inspections; 2) foodborne illness surveillance and outbreak investigations; 3) Execution of high-risk food recalls; 4) Inspection of foreign food facilities; and 5) Sampling of imported food samples (including sampling for antibiotic residue contamination and decomposition analysis). These are among critical activities ongoing by dedicated, unpaid staff.”

The complicated, intertwined effects of the government shutdown are deeply concerning. The long-term consequences to the lack of oversight to food safety are yet unknown, and there does not seem to be a quick end to the shutdown within sight. NBC News reported on January 23 that the Trump administration has asked for a list of programs that could be affected if the shutdown continues for additional weeks, signaling preparation for an ongoing stalemate until, perhaps, March.

If you are concerned about what kinds of pesticides could be in your food, especially with lack of regulation, you can utilize Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database. The organization evaluates the impact of toxic chemicals allowed for use on individual fruits and vegetables grown domestically and internationally.

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

Sources: Food Safety News, Reuters, Contagion Live, NBC News

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2019) A UK Study has concluded that the expansion of community gardens, identified as “pollinator hotspots” with “high pollinator diversity,” offer an important opportunity for assisting ailing pollinator species and improving community quality of life, particularly in low income neighborhoods. Consequently, researchers suggest towns and cities can be planned and managed more effectively to steward existing urban biodiversity to create essential havens for pollinators and people under stress.

The study finds that, “A high level of community robustness to species loss is increasingly recognized as an important goal in restoration ecology, since robust communities are better able to withstand perturbations.”

As previous research has shown that organic agriculture boosts local economies, researchers account for and compare a key socioeconomic factor; household income. Affluent neighborhoods have larger, more numerous, and more consistently maintained gardens and green spaces. To increase city-scale robustness, researchers suggest increasing community garden allotments, planting perennial flowering plants in cemeteries, and improving management of public parks. However, researchers explain that increasing the number of community gardens, particularly in communities of low-income, would be the best strategy per unit area, as it would expand viable habitat for pollinators throughout cities while providing much-needed green space and food sources for people.

To identify conservation opportunities, the study examined all major land uses and their impact on floral availability in the cities Bristol, Edinburgh, Leeds and Reading in the United Kingdom (UK). The nine major land use categories selected for sampling, include: (1) allotments (community gardens); (2) cemeteries; (3) residential gardens; (4) man-made impermeable surfaces; (5) urban nature reserves; (6) other green spaces (including school playing fields and yards); (7) public parks; (8) pavements; and (9) road verges (plant strips in-between roadways and sidewalks). For each city, ten sampling sites were chosen randomly. Every site was sampled three times between April and September of 2012 and 2013.

Results correlate floral abundance with pollinator abundance. Bees, hoverflies and non-syrphid Diptera (such as the common fly), represent 90% of flower visitors. For all four cities, residential and community gardens contain 54–83% of pollinators. Unsurprisingly, plant species commonly called “weeds” were shown to be critical for pollinator survival as they provide a varied array of nutrient resources.

Overall, Dandelion (Taraxacum), were visited most often, and common daisy least often. Other pollinator favorites are Creeping buttercup: Ranunculus repens, Hogweed, or cow parsnip (Heracleum sphondylium), and a perennial species, Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense).

In all four cities, residential gardens at houses with higher median income showed higher floral abundance, along with higher numbers of pollinators present.

“[Community gardens] are incredibly important at a city level, despite their small area,” said lead-author Katherine Baldock, PhD, School of Biological Sciences, at the University of Bristol, UK. “They are a good place for pollinators to hang out and provide a win-win situation, as they are also good for food growing and for people’s health.”

The influence of socioeconomic factors in constraining pollinator conservation cannot be discounted. Especially with climate change bringing stronger storms and heavy rains, building communities resilient to storm surges and food shortages can be the only measure of success. In this way, urban planning for sustainability will necessitate the expansion of community gardens and robust local food systems.

Take Action: In light of the shortcomings of federal action and industry groups working to weaken and derail any pesticide reforms at state and local levels, gardeners have an important role to play in pollinator conservation, quality of life, and availability of local organic food community-wide across all income groups. Organize with community leaders and arrange meetings with city officials to discuss expanding garden resources and training programs, such as arranging planting demonstrations.

For parks, advocate for organic land management with city officials. One simple strategy; reduced mowing, comes with immediate cost-savings, and with it, increased floral abundance for urban pollinators in distress. What more can you do? For comprehensive protection, ensure new pollinator habitat be kept pesticide-free, as designated pollinator habitat areas can still put pollinators at risk if pesticides are used.

Before you mow, consider allowing flowering plants, like clover and dandelions to bloom. Consider turning your yard into an organic, low-maintenance garden, or let a portion of your property re-wild altogether. Preserve biodiversity as if life depends on it. For more information and guidelines to get you started, read “Hedgerows for Biodiversity” by Terry Shistar, Ph.D. You can also visit “Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind” for help deciding which plants are right for your region and the type of pollinators you want to attract.

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

Sources: The Guardian, Nature Ecology & Evolution

(Beyond Pesticides, January, 23, 2019) Individuals that have been acutely poisoned by pesticides at some time in their life may be more likely to lose their sense of smell, according to a recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives.  Researchers focused on the effect of high pesticide exposure events (HPEE), such as a pesticide spill or other incident, on a farmers’ ability to smell later in life. This is the first study to indicate pesticide exposure may result in olfactory impairment.

Farmers from Iowa and North Carolina enrolled in an ongoing U.S. Agricultural Health Study have been asked about their pesticide use roughly every 5 to 6 years since 1993. In the most recent survey, taken from 2013-2015, farmers were asked additional questions about HPEE in their lifetime and whether they had a significantly decreased or impaired sense of smell.

“Studying farmers gives us more reliable data on pesticide exposures than if we had studied the general population,” says Honglei Chen, MD, PhD, lead author and professor of epidemiology at Michigan State University in a press release. “Because they use pesticides more and it’s part of their job, they’re more likely to remember what pesticides they used and in cases of high exposures, report the specific events.”

Of the roughly 10k farmers interviewed during the recent survey, nearly 1,200 reported some form of impairment to their sense of smell. Analyzing data from questions asked during the original 1993 survey, researchers found that farmers that reported a history of HPEE at the outset were 49% more likely to experience olfactory impairment than farmers that did not.

Evidently, those that delayed washing with soap and water after their exposure incident were roughly 1.5 times likelier to experience loss of smell than those that immediately worked to wash off the pesticide. But scientists found that the route of exposure mattered little, with farmers reporting roughly the same loss of smell whether the HPEE involved either internal or dermal impacts.  Significant associations were also found for particular pesticides. Specifically, two legacy organochlorine insecticides, DDT and lindane, as well as the herbicides alachlor, metolachlor, 2,4-D, and pendimethalin were all singled out within the study.

Scientists speculated on a range of ways pesticides may be disrupting olfactory senses. Exposure may damage the epithelium, or thin tissue inside the nose, impair the olfactory nerve, disrupt the immune system, the microbiome within the nose, and/or cause potentially persistent inflammation.

But very few major studies have been performed on the link between pesticide exposures and smell steadfastness. There is incidence in the literature of anosmia, or smell loss, after exposure to a pyrethrin based insecticide, and a 2015 study on farmworker smell difficulties found suggestive but inconclusive results. The authors indicate that although their results were strong, additional research on this issue is necessary to better understand the connection. In any case, it is another consideration for farmers working in chemical-intensive agriculture, alongside reports of increased rates of depression, asthma, and certain cancers.

“Olfactory impairment affects up to 25 percent of our older population, and our understanding of what the consequences are is still very limited,” Dr. Chen noted. “Studies have also suggested that older adults with a poor sense of smell are more likely to die earlier, so understanding the factors involved is very important.”

Farmers and residents alike should work to avoid any HPEE by forgoing the purchase, storage and use of toxic synthetic pesticides in the first place. By transitioning away from toxic chemicals in favor of alternative practices that work with, rather than against nature, farmers, farmworkers, consumers, and the planet will benefit from better health and long-term well-being. Organic represents the realization of this sustainable, alternative paradigm. By purchasing organic whenever possible, you support a system replaces toxic pesticides with safer practices.

Read more about the health effects linked to pesticide exposure through Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: MSU Press Release, Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, January 22, 2019) Earlier this month, U.S. Representative Nydia Velásquez (D-NY) introduced The Ban Toxic Pesticides Act, H.R.230 which bans the insecticide chlorpyrifos from commerce.

Chlorpyrifos is a toxic chemical that has been linked to damaging and often irreversible health outcomes in workers, pregnant women, and children. As a result of a revised human health risk assessment, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a regulation to ban chlorpyrifos in 2016. Under the Trump Administration, the EPA has taken steps to reverse the regulation.

“It’s unconscionable for EPA to turn a blind eye as children and workers are exposed to this poison,” Velázquez said.  “If the EPA won’t do its job when it comes to chlorpyrifos, then Congress needs to act – and do so quickly.”

Ask your U.S. Representative to Co-Sponsor H.R. 230 to Stop the Use of the Toxic Insecticide Chlorpyrifos, which Is Damaging Children’s Brains. 

Chlorypyrifos is a widely used pesticide. Agriculture companies annually spray 6 million pounds of the substance on crops like citrus, apples, and cherries.  In the same family as Sarin gas, the substance was initially developed prior to World War II as a chemical weapon. It can overstimulate the nervous system to cause nausea, dizziness, and confusion. With very high exposures (accidents or spills), it can cause respiratory paralysis and even death. When applying the chemical to fields, workers must wear protective garments such as respirators. Workers are then blocked from entering the fields from 24 hours up to 5 days after application due to the chemical exposure risk.

In August, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement its previous proposed ban of the chemical in the U.S. However, the Administration is appealing the ruling, seeking to prevent implementation of the Obama-era ban.

Rep. Valázaquez states, “As long as there are efforts underway in the courts or administratively to undo the ban on this toxic pesticide, I’ll be working to see chlorypyrifos removed from commerce through the legislative process.”

There is a strong recent history of action of introducing legislation to remove chlorpyrifos from use. The same legislation being proposed by Valazquez was introduced in the last Congress as H.R. 3380, Pesticide Protection Act (2017). In the closing days of the 115th Congress, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) introduced a bill to ban chlorpyrifos. The Prohibit Chlorpyrifos Poisoning Students Act (S. 3764) would elevate Hawai‘i’s state ban to the national level, banning the use of the chemical near (within 300 feet of) schools in 2019 and banning its sale and distribution altogether the following year. The legislation follows a 2017 bill introduced by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act, S. 1624, that deems any food with chlorpyrifos residues to be adulterated and therefore illegal.

EPA negotiated a cancellation of all residential uses (with the exception of golf courses and disease-carrying mosquitoes) in 2000 after finding significant neurotoxic effects on children. In June, 2018, Hawai‘i became the first state to ban chlorpyrifos, effective 2022.

Given the abundant research demonstrating deleterious effects of chlorpyrifos on human health –including a 2016 EPA human risk assessment that found the agency’s exposure threshold is exceeded for children, and citing concerns about chlorpyrifos levels in the air in schools, homes, and communities — it is critical to support a complete ban on the chemical.

H.R. 230 has 56 house representative co-sponsors. If your representative has already signed on, you will be prompted to send them a thank you note that encourages them to keep advocating for human and environmental health.

Ask your U.S. Representative to Co-Sponsor H.R. 230 to Stop the Use of the Toxic Insecticide Chlorpyrifos, which Is Damaging Children’s Brains. 

Letter to U.S. Representatives:

I am writing to request that you co-sponsor The Ban Toxic Pesticides Act, H.R.230. Introduced by Rep. Nydia Velásquez, the act bans the insecticide chlorpyrifos from commerce. Chlorpyrifos is a toxic chemical that has been linked to damaging and often irreversible health outcomes in workers, pregnant women, and children.

 EPA negotiated a cancellation of all residential (with the exception of golf courses and disease-carrying mosquitoes) uses in 2000, after determining that the neurotoxic effects to children exceeded reasonable levels. A 2016 revised EPA human health risk assessment of chlorpyrifos found that the agency’s exposure threshold is exceeded for children, citing concerns about levels in the air at schools, homes, and communities in agricultural areas. As a result, the EPA developed a regulation to ban chlorpyrifos. Under the Trump Administration, the EPA has taken steps to reverse the regulation despite clear human health hazards.

In June of 2018, Hawai‘i became the first state to ban chlorpyrifos (effective in 2022). The evidence of deleterious effects and momentum of policy change make it clear: there is an urgent need to extend protection from chlorpyrifos to children and others in all states.

Please confirm with me that you will co-sponsor H.R. 230, The Ban Toxic Pesticides Act.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Co-sponsors in the last (115^th) Congress (56): Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva, Rep. David N. Cicilline, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rep. McNerney, Rep. Peter DeFazio, Rep. Blumenauer, Rep. Bonamici, Rep. Roybal-Allard, Rep. Quigley, Rep.
Lee, Rep. Chu, Rep. Eleanor H. Norton, Rep. Frederica S. Wilson, Rep. Gabbard, Rep. Jackson Lee, Rep. Peter Welch, Rep. Mark Pocan, Rep. Espaillat, Rep. Lipinski, Rep. Kathy Castor, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, Rep. Steve Cohen, Rep. Ro Khanna, Rep. Tim Ryan, Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, Rep. Chris Smith, Rep. Pramilia Jayapal, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Rep. Gregory Meeks, Rep. Albio Sires, Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán, Rep. Dwight Evans, Rep. Betty McCollum, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Raskin, Rep. McGovern, Rep. Ted W. Lieu, Rep. Bobby Rush, Rep. Pingree, Rep. Grace Meng, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Huffman, Rep. Fudge, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, Rep. Donald M. Payne, Jr, Rep. Tony Cárdenas, Rep. Matt Cartwright, Rep. Pete Visclosky, Rep. Jimmy Gomez, Rep. Jackie Speier, Rep. Grace Napolitano, Rep. Seth Moulton, Rep. Katherine Clark.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 18, 2019) A new analysis by Charles Benbrook, PhD, published in the journal Environmental Sciences Europe, adds to the chronicle of the failures of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect human health from toxic pesticides, and in this subject instance, from glyphosate. Meanwhile, a French Court has pulled the license for a Roundup product, citing the French government’s failure to protect public health.

In his paper, Dr. Benbrook examines the divergent positions on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate — the active ingredient in a number of herbicides, most notably Monsanto’s (now Bayer’s) Roundup — taken by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and by EPA. The paper calls out EPA’s handling of science related to the safety of glyphosate, suggesting that the agency has discounted evidence of the compound’s association with genotoxicity — destructive effects on cellular genetic material that can cause mutations — which can result in cancer.

Dr. Benbrook is an American agricultural economist, former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences board on agriculture, and former research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University. He has long studied pesticide use related to genetically engineered crops in the U.S., as well as their health impacts; see previous coverage by Beyond Pesticides here and here.

Publication of this paper follows the August 2018 San Francisco County Superior Court landmark decision for plaintiff DeWayne “Lee” Johnson, a former school groundskeeper exposed regularly to Roundup in the course of his job duties, who was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma at age 42 and became terminally ill. The jury awarded Mr. Johnson $39 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages in his suit against Monsanto, then-maker of Roundup. (The judge later cut the total $289 million figure to $78 million.)

The analysis also precedes the first scheduled federal trial about whether glyphosate compounds can cause cancer. That suit, by California resident Edwin Hardeman, which will be heard in federal district court in San Francisco starting on February 25, will be the first to go to a jury among more than 620 cases pending in federal litigation. Dr. Benbrook testified as an expert witness in Mr. Johnson’s case, and is expected to testify for the plaintiff in Mr. Hardeman’s. Unsurprisingly, the defendant in the federal court case is seeking to have Dr. Benbrook’s testimony excluded.

The difference between the IARC and EPA positions on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate is this: in March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate (as well as malathion and diazinon) as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” (Upon IARC’s announcement, Beyond Pesticides called on EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to stop the use of the herbicide, given that ruling.) EPA, on the other hand, continues to classify glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” despite scientific evidence.

Dr. Benbrook’s analysis considered the number and nature of the glyphosate studies evaluated by IARC and EPA. His conclusion? “Clearly, compared to EPA’s genotoxicity review, the IARC review is grounded on more recent, more sensitive, and more sophisticated genotoxic studies, and more accurately reflects real-world exposures.” In addition, he noted that EPA has relied for its fundamental assessment of glyphosate on dozens of studies paid for by Monsanto (and other makers of glyphosate products) that found no evidence of association with the development of cancer in those exposed.

EPA has maintained that its review of glyphosate has been comprehensive and vigorous, that glyphosate represents a “low toxicity” risk for humans, and that glyphosate-based products are safe to use when label directions are followed. Dr. Benbrook, however, says that very little of the research EPA has used in its review of glyphosate actually evaluates the compound in the formulations that are sold in the marketplace and used “on the ground.” In its classification decision, IARC highlighted concerns about herbicide formulations that combine glyphosate with other ingredients to enhance weed killing effectiveness.

In fact, EPA began to collaborate only in 2016 — after glyphosate herbicides had been on the market for 42 years — with the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) to assess the relative toxicity of the various glyphosate formulations. Early results of that assessment (released in 2018) point to evidence that Roundup and other formulations are potentially more toxic to human cells than is the active ingredient alone. Acting Chief of NTP Mike DeVito said that its early findings are clear on one key point. “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells.”

Although Dr. Benbrook’s analysis is the first to do a deep dive on how and why the EPA and IARC drew such different conclusions, other scientists (including some from EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and from a panel of scientific experts convened by the EPA) have also identified problems with the agency’s classification of glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” He reviewed the citations for genotoxicity testing in EPA and IARC reports — both those that were published in peer-reviewed journals and the unpublished ones given to EPA by Monsanto (and other companies).

Environmental Health News reports that Dr. Benbrook’s analysis revealed that, within the body of available evidence, EPA relied on 151 studies; 115 showed no evidence of genotoxicity, and 36 that had positive results (i.e., showed evidence of genotoxicity). IARC cited 191 studies; 45 showed negative results (no evidence of genotoxicity), and 146 showed evidence of genotoxicity. On that basis, IARC reported that within these studies it found “strong evidence that exposure to glyphosate or glyphosate-based formulations is genotoxic.”

Dr. Benbrook’s analysis also found that at least 27 other studies published during the past three years have addressed potential mechanisms of genotoxic action for glyphosate and/or glyphosate-based herbicide formulations, and all but one reported one or more positive result. According to Dr. Benbrook, EPA’s failure to focus on these formulations is dangerous because they “account for all commercial uses and human exposures (no herbicide products contain just glyphosate),” and much more research is needed on real-world exposures.

Concerns about the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides is hardly confined to the U.S. After a great deal of “churn” about the issue in Western Europe, including a proposed 10-year extension of use approval, in early 2018, the European Parliament convened a Special Oversight Committee to review the European Union’s authorization procedure for pesticides, largely because of its controversial review of glyphosate.

Now comes news that a French court has canceled the license for, and instituted an immediately effective ban on, Roundup Pro 360, one of Bayer’s (Monsanto’s) glyphosate-based herbicides. A court in Lyon ruled that the 2017 approval of Roundup Pro 360 by French environment agency ANSES (Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail) had not respected a “precautionary principle” in failing to consider potential health risks.

Concern was apparently great enough that the court took this step even in the context of President Emanuel Macron’s pledge to phase out glyphosate-based herbicides by 2021. In a summary, the court said, “Despite the European Union’s approval of the active substance (glyphosate), the court considered that scientific studies and animal experiments showed Roundup Pro 360 . . . is a potentially carcinogenic product for humans, suspected of being toxic for human reproduction and for aquatic organisms.” Bayer, of course, disagreed with the decision and is considering its legal options. It has cited regulatory rulings as well as scientific studies that “found glyphosate to be safe.”

With thousands of court cases pending in the U.S. alone, Bayer and other pesticide producers may have a rough road ahead, and judicial action may eventually force regulators to act more ambitiously on protection of human health from glyphosate-based products. Beyond Pesticides will monitor developments on the glyphosate frontier; keep informed through its Daily News Blog.

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

Sources: https://www.ehn.org/glyphosate-cancer-epa-2625974133.html and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-monsanto-france/french-court-cancels-monsanto-weedkiller-permit-on-safety-grounds-idUSKCN1P91F6

(Beyond Pesticides, January 17, 2019) Although the rusty patched bumblebee was placed on the endangered species list in 2017, the Trump Administration has failed to put in place legally required safeguards for the species. As a result, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is suing the Administration’s Department of the Interior (DOI) for failing to designate locations where additional protections could help restore the endangered bumblebee’s population. Advocates say DOI’s failure to comply with requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is consistent with the Trump Administration’s continued disregard for ongoing pollinator declines and environmental protections in general.

Under ESA, DOI is required to determine “critical habitat” that contains physical and biological requirements a listed species needs in order to recover. That area must be designated within one year of placing a species on the endangered list, using best available scientific data. But the Trump Administration’s DOI, under both former Director Ryan Zinke and Acting Director David Bernhardt, has failed to do so, in violation of ESA. NRDC’s legal director Rebecca Riley notes that this lack of follow-through “leaves this highly endangered bee’s habitat at risk of destruction and decreases the species’ chance for survival.”

The rusty patched bumblebee has a historical range that included habitat throughout the Northeast and Midwest United States. The Washington Post notes that, “The rusty patched bumblebee was so prevalent 20 years ago that pedestrians in Midwestern cities had to shoo them away.” However, pesticide use, climate change, disease, and habitat loss led to significant declines over the last several decades. Since then, their populations have dwindled and their overall decline is estimated at 91 percent.

The Trump Administration has dragged its feet on protecting the rusty patched bumblebee since the beginning of its term. The species was proposed for ESA listing under the Obama Administration in 2016, and finalized in 2017 only a week before the new Administration took power. However, on his first day in office, President Trump directed federal agencies to postpone the effective date of any regulations that had been published to the federal register, but not yet put into effect. This move effectively reversed the ESA listing of the rusty patched. However, NRDC quickly launched at lawsuit to reinstate the designation, arguing that the delay in rulemaking illegally denied the species essential protections under the law.

In March 2017, the species was finally placed onto the endangered list, leading to NRDC dropping its initial lawsuit. This new court case responds to a lack of action after the initial designation. “Limiting [the rusty patched bumblebee] to just a tiny sliver of the habitat where they once thrived not only limits the likelihood that the bees persist,” said Daniel Raichel, a staff attorney for the Pollinator Initiative at NRDC. “It also fails to live up to the obligations of the Endangered Species Act.”

Unfortunately the Trump Administration’s actions in this case are more of the norm rather than the exception. In August of last year, DOI reversed a long-standing policy that prohibited the use of systemic, bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides on National Wildlife Refuges. The Administration has also worked on the pesticide industry’s behalf to slow down the implementation of farmworker protections and continue the allowance of another highly toxic insecticide chlorpyrifos.

Take action today by urging DOI to reinstate its ban on the use of bee-toxic pesticides in National Wildlife Refuges.  For more information on what you can do to protect pollinators in your backyard and community, visit Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.

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

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council

(Beyond Pesticides, January 16, 2019) Preliminary counts in California indicate the western monarch butterfly population dropped 86% from 2017 to 2018. The survey is a result of an annual effort by volunteer citizen scientists, organized by the nonprofit organization Xerces Society. If the trend from the initial sample (97 sites) holds true, the population of overwintering butterflies is estimated to be less than 30,000 – 0.05% of its historical size. Full and vetted results will be published in late January.

To get an accurate count of monarch populations, volunteers follow a monitoring guide, which recommends beginning a count on a still, cool, and dry morning so that monarchs are still clustered together. Volunteers count a small cluster of monarchs and then extrapolate that number to arrive at a total for the larger cluster they’re observing. Citizen science has been crucial to understanding the decline of monarchs and insects worldwide. As covered by The New York Times, the current “Insect Apocalypse” has largely been documented by volunteers.

The dismal numbers recorded this year are potentially disastrous, as the predicted extinction threshold for overwintering western monarchs is a population of 30,000. However this threshold, based on population densities needed for thermoregulation and mating during winter, will only be verified once the western monarch’s yearly migration patterns cease. And at that point it will likely be too late to save the wild population.

Using statistical analysis of citizen science data, a 2017 study posited the extinction risk of monarch butterflies in western North America to be ~50-70% within 20 years, and ~65-85% within 50 years. The precarious situation of the butterfly population can be attributed to both recent events and long-term stressors, including pesticide use.

To start, western monarch breeding populations in March and April were historically low. Art Shapiro, PhD, a distinguished professor of evolution and ecology at the University of California, Davis, noted in September 2018, “I have not seen a wild egg or caterpillar of the monarch this entire calendar year at low elevations. Not one.”

The weather in California was less than favorable, beginning with late rainy season storms in March. A severe and extended wildfire season – the most destructive on record – caused a smoky atmosphere and reduced habitat. The historic drought that established conditions for the massive wildfires had a negative impact on butterfly populations in its own right.

Overall, the western monarch population has declined by 95% since the 1980’s. Significant contributors to the dramatic decline are habitat loss, pesticide use (both insecticides and herbicides), and climate change.

As we confront the potential extinction of western monarchs, a swift and drastic response is necessary. In 2017, a number of environmental groups urged the Trump Administration to expand protections and efforts for monarch butterflies. The administration has not responded to this call to action, and continues to roll back federal protections.  Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt has referred to the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as an “unnecessary regulatory burden” on citizens and companies. Regardless, advocates say it is important to keep placing pressure on elected officials, especially those at the local level, to protect biodiversity.

The Xerces Society states, “Key areas to focus habitat protection and restoration efforts include overwintering sites and breeding habitat in California, particularly the Central Valley and foothills. Elsewhere in the western states, important breeding grounds for monarchs can be found in eastern Washington and parts of Oregon, as well as the Snake River Plain of Idaho, areas where habitat has likely been lost.”

Crucial to long-term recovery of monarchs and other pollinators is comprehensive adoption of organic land care practices. Agricultural lands comprise 77% of all prospective monarch habitat and are therefore critical to foster pesticide-free habitat for pollinator populations. As it stands, many agricultural fields employ a range of toxic pesticides, such as systemic neonicotinoid insecticides, which make the pollen and nectar of plants toxic to pollinators, or genetically engineered crops, which tolerate repeated glyphosate exposure and through drift indirectly lead to the loss of milkweed on which monarchs depend.

Beyond Pesticides has many resources that support monarchs and other declining pollinator populations on the individual level, including Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind and Hedgerows for Biodiversity: Habitat is needed to protect pollinators, other beneficial organisms, and healthy ecosystems.  You can also visit the BEE Protective Habitat Guide and Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity.

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

Source: Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

(Beyond Pesticides, January 14, 2019)  A petition submitted on January 7 by the Center for Biological Diversity calls on the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to initiate rulemaking to proscribe nearly all pesticide use in areas that are deemed critical habitat for endangered species. It asks these federal agencies to use the authority they have under the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect wildlife from the threats represented by pesticides — which threats both agencies have long recognized. The language of the ESA says its purpose is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.”

In its press release on the petition, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) notes that it comes “after decades of intransigence by the Environmental Protection Agency, which has refused to comply with the legal mandates of the Endangered Species Act to protect the nation’s most imperiled species from highly toxic pesticides like chlorpyrifos and atrazine that are known to harm wildlife.” CBD environmental health director Lori Ann Burd said, “Pesticides pose a devastating danger to endangered wildlife, from coast to coast. If the EPA isn’t going to do what’s needed to protect America’s endangered species from pesticides, federal wildlife agencies need to step in.”

In a more sensical world, federal agency enforcement would comport with the dictates of the ESA. But as the petition itself notes, such “rulemaking is necessary because the facts and history overwhelmingly demonstrate that the Environmental Protection Agency (‘EPA’) is both unwilling and unable to comply with the clear statutory requirements to address the harm caused by pesticides to threatened and endangered species by consulting with the Services prior to the approval of a pesticide, as well as failing to comply with the Endangered Species Act on other discretionary agency actions taken under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (‘FIFRA’).” (See more on the ESA role in pesticide regulation below.)

The protective standard of the ESA is stronger than the “unreasonable adverse effects” FIFRA standard. The ESA law requires federal agencies to ensure that “actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such agency has been granted an exemption for such action. . . . In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific and commercial data

available.”

The statute also prohibits any unauthorized “take” of any listed species of endangered fish or wildlife (“take” being defined as any harm, harassment, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capture, or collection). It is worth noting that the economic impacts of protecting endangered species are not, by statute, supposed to play a role in regulatory decisions to restrict pesticides. However, the current federal administration seeks to change the way cost-benefit analysis of regulation is enacted in federal agencies such that “cost to industry” enjoys increased importance in determinations.

The current request by CBD is one in a long series of lawsuits and petitions aimed at getting EPA to follow the law, including compliance with the mandates of the Endangered Species Act. Petitioner and plaintiff organizations involved in these efforts have approached the task from a variety of angles, and have used the more-stringent language of the ESA to secure greater protection for both wildlife and ecosystems. (See a litany of such actions, below.)

Some back story is in order: When EPA registers pesticides for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — the federal law under which EPA can enable and regulate use of pesticides — it must meet not only the requirements of FIFRA, but also, its legal responsibility to consult with the agencies charged with implementation of ESA to ensure that pesticide use patterns do not cause harm to endangered and threated species. Those agencies are the National Marine Fisheries Service, which operates under the aegis of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which operates out of the Department of the Interior.

[Fun fact: NOAA operates under the Department of Commerce, rather than the Department of the Interior, where it used to reside. This is a weird artifact of some administrative shenanigans on the part of President Nixon to punish then-Secretary of the Interior Wally Hickel for his criticism of Nixon’s Vietnam War policy.]

FWS and NMFS decide whether a species is either “threatened” or “endangered,” and should be listed under the ESA. (Generally, FWS has authority over terrestrial and freshwater species, and NMFS over marine species.) Once listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under ESA, a species is afforded certain legal protections. The required consultation process starts with the “action” agency’s (often EPA’s) request for information on whether any species listed (or proposed to be listed) under the ESA is present in the area of a proposed action. The agency then conducts a biological assessment to identify whether those species are likely to be affected by the proposed action. If there is a determination that any species may be present and is likely to be affected by the proposed action, consultation continues with FWS and/or NMFS.

The relevant Service then prepares a biological opinion that identifies impacts on the subject species. If it finds that the action would jeopardize the continued existence of the species or adversely affect critical habitat (a “jeopardy opinion”), the Service must suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid the adverse impacts. If there are no such alternatives, the agency may not proceed with the project unless the Endangered Species Act Committee grants an exception. If the Service does not issue a jeopardy opinion (a “non-jeopardy opinion”), it must inform the agency whether there are any “reasonable and prudent measures” that should be applied to the project.

The federal regulatory landscape for pesticides can be pretty complicated. Essentially, EPA regulates pesticides primarily under the dictates of two laws: FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as well as by two amendments to them: the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003. But the ESA is also active in this landscape. FIFRA requires all pesticides sold or distributed in the U.S. to be registered by EPA. Pesticides become legal for us (with some exceptions) when EPA completes its process for registering them. The role of the ESA in this process is outlined here.

The FFDCA mandates establishment of a maximum permissible level of pesticide residue in or on human food and animal feed (a so-called “tolerance”). The FQPA amends both FIFRA and FFDCA, and sets out that EPA must determine that a pesticide poses a “reasonable certainty of no harm” before it can be registered, and that such registration must be reviewed at least once every 15 years. The PRIA sets out administrative requirements related to fee payment for registration and meeting deadlines for decision making.

The litany of attempts to make EPA follow the law includes a 2002 suit involving impacts of 54 pesticides on Northwest salmon populations (EarthJustice offers a useful history), and a 2011 suit that claimed that EPA failed to consult with FWS and NMFS (a pattern identified in several such suits) on the impacts of one or more of 381 chemicals on 214 endangered and threatened species in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). More recently, a long-standing case had a somewhat encouraging resolution: Beyond Pesticides, CBD, and fellow plaintiffs enjoyed a small victory when a settlement was reached in the case, the outcomes of which will include the eventual cancellation of registrations for 12 neonicotinoid-containing pesticides.

In a series of lawsuits beginning in 2014, plaintiffs have repeatedly acted to compel EPA to cancel approvals of a new pesticide, Dow AgroSciences’ Enlist Duo, which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate. After that, the Obama administration agreed to reanalyze some of the toxic new pesticide’s impacts, but EPA then reaffirmed its original approval and dramatically expanded it, allowing Enlist Duo to be sprayed in more than twice as many states and on cotton, in addition to corn and soybeans. The next suit, in 2015, in which Beyond Pesticides was a plaintiff, charged that EPA had inappropriately given the nod to use of the pesticide, and again failed to consult, as it legally must, with FWS about its impacts on two endangered species (the whooping crane and the Indiana bat). Later in the year, in response to that litigation, EPA announced that it would revoke its own approval of Enlist Duo.

The agency then went on to register Enlist Duo, triggering another lawsuit brought by Beyond Pesticides, CBD, and other groups, charging that approval of the compound “will lead to sharply increased spraying of toxic pesticides, harming farmers, neighboring crops, and wildlife . . . and will lead to as much as a seven-fold increase in its use in agriculture, significantly increasing exposure to farmers.” After EPA expanded approval for Enlist Duo use to 34 states and additional crops in 2017, environmental advocates (including Beyond Pesticides) once again sued EPA, in early 2018, seeking reversal of EPA approval of the compound.

Keep tabs on developments in the regulation of pesticides in the U.S., as well as other nation’s efforts to protect human and environmental health via Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News Blog.

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

Source: https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2019/pesticides-01-07-2019.php

(Beyond Pesticides, January 14, 2019) Tell Congress to stop the Trump administration from opening the floodgates to permit widespread use of antibiotics in citrus production (grapefruits, oranges and tangerines).

Despite the building national and international crisis of deadly bacterial resistance to antibiotics, this new allowance would expand on an emergency use decision the Environmental Protection Agency made in 2017. It permits up to 480,000 acres of citrus trees in Florida to be treated with more than 650,000 pounds of streptomycin per year; 23,000 citrus acres in California will likely be treated annually.

The World Health Organization has called bacterial resistance “one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development today.”

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to urge EPA to reject the use of antibiotics in food production, including citrus production.

The two approved antibacterial chemicals to be used as pesticides in citrus production are streptomycin and oxytetracycline. Their use was permitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under an emergency exemption in May, 2017 for a citrus greening disease caused by the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) in Florida citrus crops through December of 2019.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced March 15, “EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] section 408(l)(6).” EPA states, “[T]ime-limited tolerances are established for residues of streptomycin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10, at 2 ppm, and the dried pulp of these commodities at 6 ppm.” For oxytetracycline, EPA is allowing residues “in or on all commodities of fruit, citrus, group 10-10, at 0.4 ppm.” [See below; organic standards do not allow antibiotic use.] Now, EPA is moving forward with a permanent allowance of these chemicals.

In addition, both the active and inert ingredients in common herbicides advance antibiotic resistance. Learn more about the history of Resistance and Antibiotics by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials and Antibacterials program page.  Pose the question to policy makers: Will we now see an “Antibiotics rebellion”?

Beyond Pesticides, with other organizations, led a successful effort to remove antibiotics from organic apple and pear production because of their contribution to antibiotic resistance and the availability of alternative practices and inputs.

As bacteria become resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, the results are longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, the need for more costly or hazardous medications, and the inability to treat life-threatening infections. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of antibiotic use. Bacteria evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance. Both antibiotics proposed for expanded use are important for fighting human disease. Tetracycline is used for many common infections of the respiratory tract, sinuses, middle ear, and urinary tract, as well as for anthrax, plague, cholera, and Legionnaire’s disease, though it is used less frequently because of resistance. Streptomycin is used for tuberculosis, tularemia, plague, bacterial endocarditis, brucellosis, and other diseases, but its usefulness is limited by widespread resistance (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2006).

Exposure to antibiotics can disturb the microbiota in the gut. In addition to interfering with digestion, a disrupted gut microbiome can contribute to a whole host of “21st century diseases,” including diabetes, obesity, food allergies, heart disease, antibiotic-resistant infections, cancer, asthma, autism, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and more. Furthermore, the human immune system is largely composed of microbiota.

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to urge EPA to reject the use of antibiotics in food production, including citrus production.

Letter to Congress:

Please stand up to EPA and insist that the agency does not permit the use of antibiotics, including streptomycin and oxytetracycline, in citrus production. This creates a public health threat that EPA must consider in real terms, as it relates to longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, the need for more costly or hazardous medications, and the inability to treat life-threatening infections. Antibiotic resistance is a real and urgent public health threat and represents an existential threat to modern civilization. Antibiotic resistance kills over 23,000 people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition to the CDC, the World Health Organization has cited this escalating problem as one of the biggest public health challenges of our time.

“By 2050, resistance is estimated to add 10 million annual deaths globally with a cumulative cost to the world economy of US$100 trillion,” said Jack Heinemann, PhD, University Canterbury’s School of Biological Sciences.

In addition to interfering with digestion, exposure to antibiotics can disturb the gut microbiota, contributing to a whole host of “21st century diseases,” including diabetes, obesity, food allergies, heart disease, antibiotic-resistant infections, cancer, asthma, autism, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and more. The human immune system is largely composed of microbiota. Treating all these diseases have real costs that must be calculated when the agency allows exposure to a pesticide, in this case an antibiotic used for non-medical uses.

Note that it may not be widely appreciated that use of antibiotics on fruit trees can contribute to resistance to the antibiotic in human pathogens. The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely “vertical,” that is from parent to progeny—but can be “horizontal”— from one*/ bacterial species to another. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria or commensal gut bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens.

Consider the real cost to the American people and internationally and urge EPA to prohibit the use of streptomycin in citrus production by setting a tolerance or allowable residue of zero. Please let me know that you are able to voice your concern to EPA on this matter.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2019) Plans to weaken farmworker protections from toxic pesticides were dropped by Acting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler, according to an undated letter sent to Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) late last year. Reports indicate the action was part of a deal cut by both parties that permitted confirmation of Alexandra Dunn to the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in exchange for EPA concessions that would improve pesticide and chemical safety measures. While advocates are generally pleased with the outcome of the apparent deal, the irony that deals needed to be made for an agency with protection in its name to do its job is not lost.

Under former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the agency backtracked on provisions put in place during the Obama administration that would update farmworker protections following decades of inaction. Pruitt determined to revisit rules put in place that would require farmworkers be 18 to spray highly toxic pesticides, implement 25 to 100 ft application exclusion zones (AEZ) after pesticide applications, and permit farmworkers to have a designated representative obtain health and safety information on their behalf. These simple, commonsense protections were strongly opposed by the agrichemical industry, which lobbied EPA to backtrack and revise the aforementioned provisions.

In March of last year, 28 Senators urged then-Administrator Pruitt to retain farmworker protections. But according to BNA news reports, Acting Administrator Wheeler had intended to move forward with the revisions as recent as October 2018. While the proposals were delayed as farm bill negotiations persisted, the agency had planned to send its changes to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) this month.

In the agency’s letter to Senator Carper, EPA gave no reason for its decision to drop its revision plans. “Although the subject matter associated with these potential changes has been subject to wide ranging public stakeholder meetings and public comments, EPA will withdraw its OMB submission to propose revisions to these rules and will not make any changes to the designated representative and minimum age provision,” the letter reads.

EPA did not preclude changes to the application exclusion zone provisions, indicating that it would provide 90 days public comment should it proceed with further alterations to the rule.

Agrichemical industry groups, for their part, focused less on the indefensible position of encouraging minors to spray highly toxic restricted use pesticides, and more on how the designated representative provision could impact “confidential business information” and lead to “potential harassment and public criticisms for lawful use of EPA-approved pesticides,” according to previous statements. However without this provision, farmworkers may be poisoned by pesticides and have no route to get critical information to doctors and other medical staff that could help adequately treat poisoning symptoms. As the 28 Senators that wrote EPA indicated, “The designated representative provision is critically important because there are many reasons why a worker may be unable to access information about the chemicals they are exposed to. This commonsense safeguard has been denied to farmworkers while workers in other industries have had these protections for decades.”

Environmental justice advocates are hopeful that finally implementing these regulations will lead to better health and welfare for the countless individuals who help grow the nation’s food. Currently, the average life expectancy for a farmworker is 49 years, compared to 78 for the general population. This is similar to the life expectancy of individuals living in the 1850s, and represents a completely unacceptable data point for any industry today in a developed country.

Help promote a food production system that does not expose farmworkers and their families to toxic chemicals by purchasing organic whenever possible. Yes, organic uses pesticides, but those applied are only done so as a last resort, and the least-toxic pesticide products applied undergo several levels of evaluation by the NOSB, an independent stakeholder board consisting of a wide range of experts. To help better explain the benefits of organic food consumption, Beyond Pesticides invites readers to use the Eating with a Conscience database, which evaluates how toxic chemicals used used food items effect the environment and farmworkers.

To hear first-hand the experience farmworkers endure day in and day out, watch Beyond Pesticides’ National Pesticide Forum workshop on Farmworkers, Families and Health.

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

Source: AgriPluse (subscription required), EPA Letter to Sen. Carper

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2019) The Trump administration is opening the floodgates to allow widespread use of antibiotics in citrus (grapefruits, oranges and tangerines) production, expanding on an emergency use decision it made in 2017. The public has an opportunity to comment on the widespread use of streptomycin by January 19, 2019. You can comment on the federal government’s public comment page (regulations.gov) by leaving a comment opposing any additional use of antibiotics in food production during a national and international crisis of deadly disease resistance to antibiotics. You can copy Beyond Pesticides’ prepared comment below and add your own concerns. Strikingly, the decision allows for up to 480,000 acres of citrus trees in Florida to be treated with more than 650,000 pounds of streptomycin per year, and 23,000 citrus acres in California will likely be treated annually.

The two approved antibacterial chemicals to be used as a pesticide in citrus production are streptomycin and oxytetracycline. These uses were permitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under an emergency exemption in May, 2017, allowing residues of antibiotics in Florida orange juice, for the antibiotics streptomycin and oxytetracycline –allowing their use for a bacterial disease, citrus greening (Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) bacterium that causes Huanglongbing), in Florida citrus crops through December of 2019, and further exacerbating bacterial resistance. The World Health Organization has called bacterial resistance “one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development today.” The agency announced March 15, “EPA is issuing these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA section 408(l)(6).” EPA states “time-limited tolerances are established for residues of streptomycin in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10, at 2 ppm, and the dried pulp of these commodities at 6 ppm.” For oxytetracycline, EPA is allowing residues” in or on all commodities of fruit, citrus, group 10-10, at 0.4 ppm.” [See below; organic standards do not allow antibiotic use.]

Now, EPA is moving forward with a permanent allowance of these chemicals. While the comment period is closed on oxytetracycline, public comments on streptomycin are still open until January 19, 2019.

Antibiotic resistance is a real and urgent public health threat and represents an existential threat to modern civilization.  Antibiotic resistance kills over 23,000 people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition to the CDC, the World Health Organization has cited this escalating problem as among the biggest public health challenges of our time.

“By 2050, resistance is estimated to add 10 million annual deaths globally with a cumulative cost to the world economy of US$100 trillion,” said Jack Heinemann, PhD, University Canterbury’s School of Biological Sciences.

Antibiotics have a history of use in fruit production, but never at the scale that is being allowed by the Trump EPA. Advocates already working towards pesticide reform can add another reason for policymakers to shift away from toxic pesticides: stopping antibiotic resistance.

Beyond Pesticides, with other organizations, led a successful effort to remove antibiotics from organic apple and pear production because of their contribution to antibiotic resistance, and the availability of alternative practices and inputs.

Both the active and inert ingredients in common herbicides advance antibiotic resistance. Learn more about the history of Resistance and Antibiotics by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials and Antibacterials program page.  Pose the question to policy makers: Will we now see an “Antibiotics rebellion”?

As bacteria becomes resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, it results in longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, the need for more costly or hazardous medications, and the inability to treat life-threatening infections. The development and spread of antibiotic resistance is the inevitable effect of antibiotic use. Bacteria evolve quickly, and antibiotics provide strong selection pressure for those strains with genes for resistance. The principal traditional antibiotics used in plant agriculture to fight disease are both important for fighting human disease. Tetracycline is used for many common infections of the respiratory tract, sinuses, middle ear, and urinary tract, as well as for anthrax, plague, cholera, and Legionnaire’s disease, though it is used less frequently because of resistance. Streptomycin is used for tuberculosis, tularemia, plague, bacterial endocarditis, brucellosis, and other diseases, but its usefulness is limited by widespread resistance (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2006).

It may not be widely appreciated that use of antibiotics on fruit trees can contribute to resistance to the antibiotic in human pathogens. The human pathogenic organisms themselves do not need to be sprayed by the antibiotic because movement of genes in bacteria is not solely “vertical,” that is from parent to progeny—but can be “horizontal”— from one*/ bacterial species to another. So, a pool of resistant soil bacteria or commensal gut bacteria can provide the genetic material for resistance in human pathogens. The basic mechanism is as follows. If bacteria on the plants and in the soil are sprayed with an antibiotic, those with genes for resistance to the chemical increase compared to those susceptible to the antibiotic. Resistance genes exist for both streptomycin and tetracycline, and spraying with these chemicals increases the frequency of resistant genotypes by killing those susceptible to the antibiotic and leaving the others. Those genes may be taken up by other bacteria through a number of mechanisms, collectively known as “horizontal gene transfer.”

The contribution of antibiotic use in fruit trees to resistance in human pathogens may not be nearly as important as the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock and farmed fish, but it does have an impact on the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Furthermore, residues of antibiotics in the soil may be taken up by treated or untreated plants and affect bacteria (Kumar et al., 2005). Disruption of human gut microbiota A human being contains more cells in and on the body that belong to microbes—and contain more microbial DNA—than those that originate from human genes. In fact, only 10% of human cells are genetically human, and only 1% of the DNA in the human is “human.” The 90% of human cells that are microbial in origin are not (mostly) pathogenic, nor are they (mostly) just along for the ride. They are (mostly) symbionts that help the body function as it should. The human body, rather than being a distinct organism, should be thought of as a biological community, or “superorganism,” truly the product of coevolution.

In addition to interfering with digestion, exposure to antibiotics can disturb the microbiota, contributing to a whole host of “21st century diseases,” including diabetes, obesity, food allergies, heart disease, antibiotic-resistant infections, cancer, asthma, autism, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and more. The human immune system is largely composed of microbiota.

Help support organic agriculture, which eliminated the allowed use of antibiotics for fruit production due to concerns over resistance. Instead of “combatting” disease or unwanted insects, help policy makers identify the conditions that allow for their proliferation.

Take Action

Submit (and personalize) your comment to EPA to prohibit antibiotics in the food supply. You may use the general language below by cutting and pasting into the public comment page on this issue.

Post Your Comment by January 19:

Do not permit the use of antibiotics, including streptomycin, in citrus production. This creates a public health threat that EPA must consider in real terms, as it relates to longer-lasting infections, higher medical expenses, the need for more costly or hazardous medications, and the inability to treat life-threatening infections. Antibiotic resistance is a real and urgent public health threat and represents an existential threat to modern civilization.  Antibiotic resistance kills over 23,000 people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition to the CDC, the World Health Organization has cited this escalating problem as one of the biggest public health challenges of our time.

“By 2050, resistance is estimated to add 10 million annual deaths globally with a cumulative cost to the world economy of US$100 trillion,” said Jack Heinemann, PhD, University Canterbury’s School of Biological Sciences.

 In addition to interfering with digestion, exposure to antibiotics can disturb the microbiota, contributing to a whole host of “21st century diseases,” including diabetes, obesity, food allergies, heart disease, antibiotic-resistant infections, cancer, asthma, autism, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and more. The human immune system is largely composed of microbiota. Treating all these diseases have real costs that must be calculated when the agency allows exposure to a pesticide, in this case an antibiotic used for non-medical uses.

Consider the real cost to the American people and internationally and prohibit the use of streptomycin in citrus production by setting a tolerance or allowable residue of zero. Thank you for your consideration.

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

Source: Florida Phoenix, Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2019) It is news to approximately no one that pollinators are in trouble worldwide. A series of papers by biologists at the University of Guelph, Ontario, posits that pesticide regulations aimed at protection of honey bees fall far short of the critical task of protecting the multitude of bee species that are important pollinators of human food crops. These recent papers arose from 2017 workshops that involved 40 bee researchers from various universities, and representatives from Canadian, U.S., and European regulatory agencies, and from the agrochemical industry.

Beset by shrinking habitat, pathogens, and toxic chemical exposures, bee pollinator populations are at great risk, even as “‘our dependency on insect-pollinated crops is increasing and will continue to do so as the global population rises,’ said [Professor Nigel] Raine, [PhD], [a] co-author of all three papers recently published in the journal Environmental Entomology. . . . Protecting wild pollinators is more important now than ever before. Honeybees alone simply cannot deliver the crop pollination services we need.” There are, in fact, more than 20,000 bee species worldwide, and 3,500–5,000 bee species in North America alone.

Although regulators across many countries have focused narrowly on assessing the risk of pesticides to honey bees, many of which are “managed” for commercial pollination services, Dr. Raine notes that wild bee species — including bumblebees, mason bees, solitary bees, and others — are likely more important for food crop pollination than managed honeybees, such as those used extensively in the American West. A significant portion of those wild species live in soils as larvae and/or adults. Exposure of those species through pesticide residues in soil or food sources is essentially unstudied by researchers. The University of Guelph biologists, in their papers, call for regulators to expand their purview regarding pollinator risks, perhaps by using solitary bees and bumblebees as models.

The abstract for the papers’ publication says, “Current pesticide risk assessment practices use the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., as a surrogate to characterize the likelihood of chemical exposure of a candidate pesticide for all bee species. Bees make up a diverse insect group that provides critical pollination services to both managed and wild ecosystems. Accordingly, they display a diversity of behaviors and vary greatly in their lifestyles and phenologies, such as their timing of emergence, degree of sociality, and foraging and nesting behaviors. Some of these factors may lead to disparate or variable routes of exposure when compared to honey bees.” Pesticide exposures for wild bees can happen through their food (nectar and pollen), via airborne molecules (from spraying or volatilized through abrasion of seed coatings), in nesting substrates (especially in soils, for ground-dwelling species), in water sources, via contact with contaminated plant foliage, and even through contact with residues in the wax they produce to protect their offspring.

Angela Gradish, PhD, lead author on one of the papers and a research associate in the University of Guelph School of Environmental Sciences, adds to the argument, saying, “Everybody is focused on honeybees. . . . What about these other bees? There are a lot of unknowns about how bumblebees are exposed to pesticides in agricultural environments.” She notes, for example, that the bumblebee queen life cycle, which differs from that of the honeybee queen, may increase those queens’ exposures to pesticides while they collect food and establish their colonies. Dr. Gradish notes, “That’s a critical difference because the loss of a single bumblebee queen translates into the loss of the colony that she would have produced. It’s one queen, but it’s a whole colony at risk.” Further, other non-honeybee species may vary in body size, food consumption rates, nesting habitats and substrates, overwintering strategies, and foraging times and behaviors, among other features.

The “crash” of pollinators is happening in a wider context of biological and biodiversity loss. The lack of attention to loss in insect populations broadly was identified in a dramatic November 18, 2018 New York Times article, “The Insect Apocalypse Is Here,” which called out the staggering attrition in insect populations during the last few decades. Here in the U.S., scientists discovered relatively recently that the population of monarch butterflies has fallen by 90% in the last 20 years, and that populations of the rusty-patched bumblebee (which used to be found in 28 states) dropped by 87% in the same period. Beyond Pesticides also noted the phenomenon in its coverage of a 2017 study by a German entomological society, which found a decline in total flying insect biomass in protected areas of the country of more than 75% over a 27-year period.

The New York Times piece also quoted North Carolina State University ecologist Rob Dunn, PhD, who searched for studies on the effects of pesticide spraying on insect populations living in nearby forests, only to find there were none: “We [have] ignored really basic questions. . . . It feels like we’ve dropped the ball in some giant collective way.” The New York Times also reported a shocking reality: “A 2013 paper in [the journal] Nature, which modeled both natural and computer-generated food webs, suggested that a loss of even 30 percent of a species’ abundance can be so destabilizing that other species start going fully, numerically extinct — in fact, 80 percent of the time it was a secondarily affected creature that was the first to disappear.”

These recent papers contribute to a growing body of work that points to inadequacies in regulation of (and research on) toxic pesticides, as regards their impacts on pollinators and on the insect universe. Not only are individual pesticides poorly evaluated at the federal level (see examples here and here), but also, there is wholly insufficient attention paid to the systemic and synergistic effects of toxic pesticides on ecosystems and organisms of all sorts. Beyond Pesticides wrote extensively, in the Summer 2018 issue of its journal, Pesticides and You, about an example of such systemic impacts — the ripples, up and down a food chain, that can happen when even one species in an ecosystem is harmed. Such a disturbance in functional ecosystem balance is often called a “trophic cascade”: a series of indirect ecosystem effects set off by a change in the status or abundance of a predator or prey organism. As The New York Times wrote, “One result of [insect] loss is what’s known as [a] trophic cascade, the unraveling of an ecosystem’s fabric as prey populations boom and crash and the various levels of the food web no longer keep each other in check. These places are emptier, impoverished in a thousand subtle ways.”

At this juncture, the multitude of studies that demonstrate the huge variety and complexity of harmful impacts of pesticide exposures to pollinators makes identifying the “most important” impacts — and how to protect pollinators from them — not only a Sisyphian task, but perhaps a bit beside the point. The many studies on which Beyond Pesticides has reported in its Daily News Blog, and in its databases (see Pesticide Induced Database, Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management, Eating with a Conscience database, and the Manage Safe database), demonstrate that pesticide exposures have consequences that amount to broad and indiscriminate poisoning of, and trophic effects on, organisms and the environment. The University of Guelph’s Professor Raine commented, “‘I hope we can address shortfalls in the pesticide regulatory process. . . . Given the great variability that we see in the behaviour, ecology and life history of over 20,000 species of bees in the world, there are some routes of pesticide exposure that are not adequately considered in risk assessments focusing only on honeybees.’”

Beyond Pesticides advocates for a rapid transition to organic management practices as key to protecting pollinators and the environment. Regulatory agencies should adopt this goal and legally prohibit the use of toxic synthetic pesticides, thereby establishing a systems approach that would protect environmental and organismic — pollinator, human, and all other — health. See the Beyond Pesticides website pages on its BEE Protective program for more information on pollinator health and how to advocate for it.

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

Source: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/uog-spr121118.php

(Beyond Pesticides, January 8, 2019) At the end of December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) finalized its rule regarding the disclosure of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients in consumer foods. After years of local, state and federal pressure to implement a clear, concise labeling requirement for GE foods, advocates say USDA’s rule is a failure, and a capitulation to agrichemical corporations that promote GE farming systems. According to U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME), speaking with the Portland Press Herald, the new rule is “an insult to consumers.” She said, “These labels should give people the facts of whether ingredients in their food have been genetically altered, plain and simple.”

Rather than the plain and simple language urged by Rep Pingree and other GE labeling advocates, USDA determined to move forward with muddled verbiage that is certain to confuse consumers. GE products will not defined by a term Americans are familiar with, such as GE or GMO. Instead, the term USDA will require on product labels is “bioengineered.”

USDA is allowing companies to choose one of the following methods to alert consumers to the presence of GE ingredients in their foods:

• Inclusion of a “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering” symbol alongside a sunny plant and farm field. USDA decided not use the bioengineered symbols from its proposed rule, which mimicked a happy, smiling sun, but its new symbol is not a major improvement.
• Notification through a QR barcode. Despite widespread criticism that using a QR code will discriminate against the elderly and poor who may not have smartphones, the Department has provided that as an option.
• A phone number to text that will reply back with information. Many are concerned about the privacy aspect of this requirements, as this provision would require concerned consumers to disclose their private contact information to food companies.
• A simple statement that includes “Bioengineered Food,” or “Contains a Bioengineered Food Ingredient.”

Many advocates urged USDA to require only the last option, but under the final rule food companies are only required to choose one, making it easy to continue to hide GE ingredients from consumers.

Perhaps most concerning is how narrowly USDA decided to define foods subject to GE disclosure. For instance, if a food product has multiple ingredients, but the first product on the ingredient list is either meat, poultry, eggs, broth, stock or water, even if other ingredients in the product are GE, USDA will not require GE disclosure. Further, food products containing “refined” GE ingredients (such as oil from GE soybeans, or candy bars with high fructose corn syrup from GE corn) will not require disclosure as long as the refining process is “validated” by USDA.

Taken as a whole, many advocates are uncertain that consumers are now better off than before the weak and controversial bill was signed into law by President Obama in 2016.

Fearing consumer backlash, even large food companies are speaking out against the final rule. Sustainable Food Policy Alliance, which includes Danone, Mars, Nestle, and Unilever, wrote in a statement “The standards fall short of consumer expectations, and the practices of leading food companies, particularly when it comes to how we are already disclosing highly-refined ingredients and the threshold for disclosure.” While big food retailers are upset, organizations such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents the companies that develop and produce GE crops, were pleased with the final version of the rules.

The passage of mandatory GE labeling came prior to the implementation of Vermont’s landmark legislation, after it survived a court challenge from many of the industrial food companies now opposed to USDA’s requirements. Senators Stabenow (D-MI) and Pat Roberts (R-KS) struck a deal that ultimately resulted in these predictably weak, anti-consumer provisions.

Beyond Pesticides and many other advocates for GE labeling are primarily concerned about the health impacts of consuming products awash in pesticide residue, and believe consumers have a right to avoid products produced as part of a highly toxic GE agriculture system. Herbicide-tolerant GE crops have been associated with massive increases in herbicide use and the rampant takeover of U.S. farms by weeds which, through incessant herbicide spray, have themselves developed genes to resist herbicide effects. Glyphosate, the most common herbicide developed to be sprayed on GE plants, has decreased in effectiveness. Now, chemical companies are using older herbicides like 2,4-D and dicamba that rival glyphosate’s toxicity. Chemical companies have also incorporated insecticides into the crop itself, with evidence that resistance in target pests is trending synthetic insecticide use upwards.

The fact remains that the sort of techno-utopia of plant drought and disease resistance, increased vitamin content, and the like promised by agrichemical companies that develop GE crops has never been widely commercialized. Critics maintain that the main goal of GE crops is not to solve real agricultural problems, but instead to increase sales of seeds and pesticides, and companies’ profits and stock prices. Why else would they want to keep consumers in the dark?

For more information on the health and environmental impacts of herbicide tolerant and insecticide incorporated GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides GE program pages.

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

Source: USDA Press Release, Federal Register, Portland Press Herald, QZ

(Beyond Pesticides, January 7, 2019) As the dust settles on the final Farm Bill, which passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives last month, it is clear that neither the substance nor the process on a range of issues meet the urgent need to address key sustainability issues that put the future in peril.

We must not allow this Farm Bill to be the final word on a number of critical environmental issues facing the nation and world. That is why it is absolutely critical that we get to work immediately, with the new Congress, to set a new course that transforms the institutions of government that are holding back the urgently needed transition to a green economy.

Tell your Senators and Representative to support a Green New Deal that restructures food and agriculture programs.

On the Farm Bill, our victories were mostly measured in terms of what we were able to remove from the Farm Bill—not the standard of achievement that we need to face critical environmental threats.

 The good. Our major victory in the Farm Bill does not move us forward, but simply protects the status quo of our democracy—protecting the power of states and local government to adopt pesticide restrictions that are more stringent than the federal government. With your help and the help of a broad network of local officials nationwide, we were able to stop a preemption provision from being inserted in the federal pesticide law. Although the victory was in defeating this provision, the chemical industry has awakened a new front in the pesticide reform movement. As a result of this provision, there is new momentum to reassert the rights of local governments and repeal state-level preemption of municipalities. Other environmental setbacks to the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and farmworker protection were taken out of the final bill. So, thank you to all who participated in this important process.

The bad. We were unable to remove an amendment to organic law that introduces confusion on the mandate to sunset all synthetics used in organic agricultural production and processing, forcing the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and USDA to reassess the science and necessity of these inputs with the most rigorous scrutiny by requiring a super-majority vote of the board every five years to allow continued use of these synthetics—the same standard used when synthetics are initially petitioned. The growth of organic is essential to solving our key environmental challenges, from the dramatic decline in biodiversity to global climate change. Nothing should be done to undercut the integrity of the organic standard setting process. Additionally, new language in the organic law allows farmer, handler, and retailer positions on the NOSB to be filled by employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers, making the decision making process less robust.

The ugly. The Farm Bill sets policy on food and farm issues for the next five years and should not be the result of backroom negotiations in Congress, as it was this round. Important and controversial issues deserve public hearings in which all members of Congress and the public can participate, and all perspectives can be heard.

More on organic. There were some “wins” for organic in continued funding for programs important to organic production and research, and necessary improvements to oversight and enforcement of organic imports.

New leadership. Increasing support is being shown for a proposal by U.S. Representative-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to form a House Select Committee for a Green New Deal that addresses economic and environmental reforms while ensuring a functioning democracy. A Green New Deal  provides a framework for supporting agriculture that helps farmers, consumers, and the environment by advancing organic agriculture. In the words of commentator and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower, “Everybody does better when everybody does better.” We need new food and farm policy that benefits all farmers and consumers.

Tell your Senators and Representative to support a Green New Deal that restructures food and agriculture programs.

Letter to U.S. Representatives, including newly-elected members:

I am writing to urge you to support the proposal by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to form a House Select Committee for a Green New Deal that addresses economic and environmental reforms while ensuring a functioning democracy. A Green New Deal provides a framework for supporting agriculture that helps farmers, consumers, and the environment. In the words of commentator and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower, “Everybody does better when everybody does better.” We need new food and farm policy that benefits all farmers and consumers.

In the wake of a disappointing Farm Bill vote, following an even more disappointing undemocratic process, it is evident that the process of creating food and farm policy every five years in the backrooms of Congressional agriculture committees fails to move the country forward in a way that is needed for farmers, farm communities, the national economy, and the environment. Food and agriculture policy needs to be guided by a vision for the future where everybody does better–where policies are not viewed in terms of trade-offs, but synergy benefiting all.

Please support the formation of a House Select Committee for a Green New Deal.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Letter to U.S. Senators:

I am writing to urge you to support hearings in the Senate on a Green New Deal that addresses economic and environmental reforms while ensuring a functioning democracy. A Green New Deal provides a framework for supporting agriculture that helps farmers, consumers, and the environment. In the words of commentator and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower, “Everybody does better when everybody does better.” We need new food and farm policy that benefits all farmers and consumers.

In the wake of a disappointing Farm Bill vote, following an even more disappointing undemocratic process, it is evident that the process of creating food and farm policy every five years in the backrooms of Congressional agriculture committees fails to move the country forward in a way that is needed for farmers, farm communities, the national economy, and the environment. Food and agriculture policy needs to be guided by a vision for the future where everybody does better–where policies are not viewed in terms of trade-offs, but synergy benefiting all.

Please support hearings on a Green New Deal.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, January 4, 2019) First, the good news: plaintiffs in a 2013 lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can allow themselves a small victory dance. In that suit, plaintiffs made a number of claims related to EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides, its poor oversight of the bee-killing pesticides clothianidin and thiamethoxam, and its practice of “conditional registration,” as well as labeling deficiencies. The parties in the suit negotiated a settlement, as directed by a federal judge (see below), that was signed in October 2018 and portends some positive movement in curtailing the use of some toxic pesticides [12 products, each of which contains chlothianidin or thiamathoxam as an active ingredient] that harm pollinators in particular, as well as other organisms and the environment. It also establishes a public process for EPA to consider requiring whole formulations of pesticide products during registration, and redefining EPA’s interpretation of law that allows seeds treated with bee-toxic pesticides to escape regulation as a pesticide.

The suit was brought by a number of individual beekeepers and several organizations, including Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety (CFS), Sierra Club, and Center for Environmental Health, and named as defendants Steven Bradbury, then-director of the Office of Pesticide Programs and Bob Perciasepe, then–acting administrator and deputy administrator of EPA. Since the initial filing of the suit, the plaintiffs have added to the original complaint with subsequent, amended complaints that challenged EPA’s denial of a request to suspend the registration of products containing clothianidin. The language of the second amended complaint noted that the subject pesticides “have been shown to adversely impact the survival, growth, and health of honey bees and other pollinators vital to U.S. agriculture” and have “harmful effects on other animals, including threatened and endangered species.”

Neonicotinoids are highly toxic insecticides that damage insects’ central nervous systems, causing death even at very low doses. Use of these compounds has swelled in the past decade-plus; these pesticides are now used on more than 150 million acres of U.S. cropland. Yet their dominant application is as a seed coating for crop seeds. Because neonicotinoids persist in soil and easily become airborne, the chemicals spread far beyond target crops and can contaminate nearby plants, water, and soil, thus posing additional threats to pollinators. In addition, neonicotinoids can harm non-target organisms, such as birds and beneficial invertebrates.

In May 2017, a federal judge ruled that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when it issued 59 neonicotinoid insecticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for pesticide products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney rejected the claims of intervenors (pesticide producers) that the plaintiffs had not established causation between the subject pesticides and the harm to plaintiffs. But rather than order EPA to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) — a requirement when a pesticide is registered (so as to reduce risks to endangered species) — the judge directed the parties, including the plaintiffs, defendant EPA, and intervenor Bayer CropScience, to move forward with a settlement conference to resolve the disputes.

At the time of that ruling, Center for Food Safety Legal Director George Kimbrell called it “a vital victory,” saying, “Science shows these toxic pesticides harm bees, endangered species and the broader environment. More than 50 years ago, Rachel Carson warned us to avoid such toxic chemicals, and the court’s ruling may bring us one step closer to preventing another Silent Spring.”

That settlement process occurred, and a final document (a “joint stipulation”), agreed to in the summer of 2018, was signed by current parties in the suit: plaintiff beekeepers Steve Ellis, Tom Theobald, Jim Doan, and Bill Rhodes, and the organizations identified above; defendants Andrew Wheeler (current EPA administrator), Richard Keigwin, director of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs; and defendant-intervenors Bayer CropScience LP, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Valent USA, LLC, and CropLife America. (It is noteworthy that in the five years since the filing of the original lawsuit, the Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA has had three different directors.) Pursuant to the settlement, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, issued a stay in the case. (A “stay” is a suspension of progress of a case; said stay can subsequently be lifted by a court, based on events subsequent to the issuance of the stay.)

The settlement sets in motion a number of actions and expectations, among which is the potential cancellation of the 59 pesticide registrations. The first public action was the posting in the Federal Register of two notices of EPA seeking public comment on petitions from CFS. One requests the revision of testing requirements for pesticides prior to their registration — including requiring “testing for whole pesticide formulations to account for the toxicological effects of inert and adjuvant ingredients and the testing of tank mixes to assess the interaction between pesticide ingredients. CFS believes this change is needed to meet the applicable safety standards of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).” The second requests that EPA “initiate a rulemaking or issue a formal Agency interpretation for planted seeds treated with systemic insecticides. CSF believes that the Agency [EPA] has improperly applied the treated article exemption in exempting these products from registration and labeling requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).” Comments on both, which are due on or before March 21, 2019, can be directed as described here.

EPA will also need to post notice and invite public comment on the settlement agreement itself, after which, according to plaintiffs’ counsel, “The FIFRA cancelation process for the 12 products [each of which contains chlothianidin or thiamathoxam as an active ingredient] that the intervenors agreed to cancel will occur. This is the first time ever [that] the industry has agreed to such a term in any pesticide ESA settlement of this kind, so it quite precedential. . . . [T]he ESA deadlines [will] follow over the next few years. Importantly, the Court . . . will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement through all its steps, both the product cancellations [and] the ESA consultation steps, to ensure their completion.”

The less-good news? Even given these developments, the major neonicotinoids will continue to be used for some time. EPA typically uses a “negotiated” process to move hazardous pesticides off the market via voluntary manufacturer withdrawal (which is only then codified by EPA product cancellations), rather than take direct regulatory action. (Read commentary on this, by Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman, and about another example of this phenomenon here.)

Such regulatory action would inevitably invite industry challenge and force EPA into lengthy court proceedings. But this negotiation process also typically produces less-robust protections of public and environmental health than would more-direct regulatory action. The settlement is a small victory in a big sea of health and environmental risks of pesticide use. Stay abreast of developments on federal, state, and municipal efforts to rein in the use of toxic pesticides through the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog.

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

Sources: https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/2013-05-31-dkt-17-0–pls–amended-complaint_71924.pdf and https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/2017-5-8-dkt-269–order–granting-and-denying-in-part-msjs_54860.pdf

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2019) Bee-toxic pesticides banned for consumer use by the state of Maryland are still being sold in hardware and garden stores, according to reports from beekeeper and consumer watchdog groups. In 2016, Maryland passed the Pollinator Protection Act, which limited the use of neonicotinoids, insecticides implicated in the global decline of pollinator populations, to only certified applicators. According to spot checks by the Maryland Pesticide Education Network (MPEN) and the Central Maryland Beekeepers Association (CMBA), state enforcement agencies still have a ways to go to ensure retailers are complying with the law.

From May to October 2018, six volunteers visited 30 Maryland stores along the Baltimore-Washington corridor to see whether they are complying with the law by removing bee-toxic neonicotinoids from retail consumer sale. Eleven of the 30 stores were not in compliance, ranging from local home and garden stores to national big-box chains.

“I’ve taken bottles off the shelf and taken them up to an employee or a manager, and said, ‘You really need to stop selling this stuff — it’s illegal,’” said Steve McDaniel, a master beekeeper in Carroll County to the Bay Journal.

The state, for its part, indicates that staffing problems at the Maryland Department of Agriculture have led to the weak roll-out in enforcement during the law’s first year. MDA pesticide manager Dennis Howard told the Bay Journal, “They should be behind the counter, for the folks who can actually apply it under the legislation. I told the inspectors to try to do as many as they can,” he said, “… and speak to the managers of stores, so sales people won’t let [consumers] purchase it.”

But Ruth Berlin, executive director of MPEN, says that many retailers have been antagonistic when asked to remove bee-toxic products. “They said, ‘So what? It’s OK. No one’s going to make us take it away,” Berlin indicated to the Bay Journal.

Beekeepers and other advocates are right to be concerned about the slow roll-out. Passage of the Maryland law was hard-fought, with beekeepers donning suits to the state General Assembly, and overcoming the threat of a veto from Governor Hogan. According to the Bee Informed Partnership, Maryland beekeepers have lost an average of roughly 40% of their hives each year since the start of this decade.

“Most people, they really feel like because we got the law passed, we’re out of the woods on bee deaths,” said Bonnie Raindrop with CMBA. “What we’re seeing is a trend that’s getting worse.”

Getting compliance in line is critical to protecting pollinators, according to experiences in other countries. The City of Amsterdam in the Netherlands has seen significant success in protecting pollinators as a result of policies that banned consumer use of neonicotinoids and improved habitat.

Neonicotinoids are systemic insecticides which, once applied, are taken up by the plant and expressed in the pollen, nectar, and dew drops the plant produces. Chemicals not immediately taken up will either remain in the soil, where they have the potential to re-contaminate next year’s plantings, or work their way through the groundwater table and present a threat to aquatic species.

To date, Maryland and Connecticut are the only states to have joined the dozens of localities that have that restricted neonicotinoids use and enacted pollinator protection policies. With the start of the New Year, and new legislative sessions, now is the time to reach out to your local, state, and federal elected officials and ask them whether they’ll introduce or support legislation to protect pollinators. Contact Beyond Pesticides for information and assistance in speaking with your elected officials.

In Maryland, beekeepers will continue to watchdog MDA’s enforcement of the new law. “If they’re still carrying it next spring, we’re going to come down on [them] with both feet,” said Master Beekeeper Steve McDaniel.

More information on how to help pollinators in your community can be found on the Bee Protective webpage.

Source: Bay Journal

(Beyond Pesticides, January 2, 2019) The “indoor microbiome” of yoga studios and other athletic facilities often contain significant levels of antibacterial chemicals like triclosan, which show up in dust and breed antibiotic resistance, according to research published last month in the journal mSystems. Triclosan may be banned from hand soaps, but its continued use in a myriad of other products, from disinfectant sprays to impregnated clothing, yoga mats, and other work-out equipment makes it difficult to avoid this now-ubiquitous chemical. This is a public health concern because these antibacterial or antimicrobial chemicals are link to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Antibiotic resistance kills over 23,000 people each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition to the CDC, the World Health Organization has cited this escalating problem as become one of the biggest public health challenges of our time.

Many people may suspect their gym or yoga study is not a germ-free location, but attempts to address these germs through antibacterial sprays or impregnated yoga mats and other surfaces, may be exacerbating the issue—doing much more harm than good. The continued detection of triclosan and its impacts at new and unexpected locations are feeding renewed calls for a complete ban on its use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

As study co-author Erica Hartmann, PhD explains, “There are many products with triclosan that are not labeled because they are within the purview of the EPA instead of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration].”  “These things might include antimicrobial gym equipment, such as yoga mats and textiles.”

Using industrial vacuums, the authors of the study took dust samples from 42 different athletic facilities (yoga, martial arts, dance studios and public rec centers) throughout the Portland, OR area in 2016. These areas were chosen because of the close contact patrons have with floor mats and other surfaces, as well as their propensity to regularly use antibacterial sprays to clean these surfaces. Researchers took these dust samples and split them: one part was analyzed for the presence of antibacterials, and another for the presence of microbes.

Every antibacterial chemical tested by researchers showed up in every facility investigated. Gyms, rooms with higher moisture levels, and those with carpeted flooring all had elevated levels of antibacterials compared to other facilities.

The range of microbes detected in the dust from the various facilities was surprisingly diverse. According to the study, only 26% of microbes were detected in more than one building.

Most concerning is the finding that the number of microbes with antibiotic resistant genes was higher in facilities with elevated concentrations of triclosan and its chemical cousin triclocarban. And the type of resistance microbes display is not limited to triclosan—they exhibit a diverse range of resistance measures. “Those genes do not code for resistance to triclosan,” Dr. Hartmann clarifies. “They code for resistance to medically relevant antibiotic drugs.”

The drive to create germ-free spaces has amplified the potency of the infectious bacteria that people are likely to come into intimate contact with. But the solutions are frustratingly simple: “The vast majority of microbes around us aren’t bad and may even be good,” said Dr. Hartmann. “Wipe down gym equipment with a towel. Wash your hands with plain soap and water. There is absolutely no reason to use antibacterial cleansers and hand soaps.”

Triclosan was first registered for use as a surgical scrub in 1972, but quickly made its way from hospitals to the consumer over-the-counter market, where it began being added to soaps advertised for their antibacterial properties. Widespread use of the chemical led to widespread contamination—CDC indicates that roughly 75% of U.S. residents contain triclosan in their bodies. Over the years, more and more evidence came to light that triclosan is not only unnecessary in soaps, it is also causing a range of hazards. Scientific evidence has demonstrated a variety of adverse health impacts of triclosan and triclocarban, including skin irritation, allergies, endocrine disruption, damage to the thyroid, and an increased risk of asthma and eczema in children. It is one of the most frequently detected synthetic compounds in waterways, and is usually not filtered out from water treatment facilities. A 2013 study found that the influx of triclosan into streams alters the microbial community and increases resistance. Beyond Pesticides raised concerns about the health effects of triclosan in 2004 in its piece The Ubiquitous Triclosan, and petitioned the agency to ban the chemical in 2005.

After over a decade of advocacy in which Beyond Pesticides was joined by a range of health and consumer rights groups, in early Fall 2016, FDA announced a final ruling on triclosan’s use in consumer soaps and other washing products. FDA banned 19 specific ingredients, including triclosan and triclocarban, saying they were no longer “recognized as safe and effective,” and no better than using simple soap and water,  citing risks to health and contributions to the problem of bacterial resistance. FDA went further this year, determining that even health care uses of triclosan should be eliminated, though many other regrettable substitutions remain on the market.

And although its use in soaps has been eliminated, it is evident from this recent research that other uses have not been addressed by regulators. FDA continues to allow triclosan to be used in toothpaste like Colgate Total, despite evidence that brushing with these products causes levels of the chemical to spike in children, and accumulates in toothbrushes, causing repeated exposure unless brush heads are thrown out after use is discontinued.

FDA’s ban did nothing to address uses regulated by EPA, which allows it to be incorporated into a range of consumer products with little to no disclosure. Many products containing triclosan are marketed as “microban,” but microban may contain triclosan, or a number of regrettable substitution chemicals, making it even more difficult for consumers to know what they’re being exposed to.

Although EPA in 2015 denied petition by Beyond Pesticides and Food and Water Watch to remove remaining triclosan uses, as new evidence accumulates on the danger of this chemical, calls to ban its use are growing louder. Get informed about triclosan and other unnecessary chemicals in our environment, as well as steps you can take to eliminate their use at home, workplaces, schools, and gyms by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Antimicrobials and Antibacterials program page. For a more complete history of the regulation of this chemical, see Beyond Pesticides’ triclosan timeline, as was as previous Daily News articles.

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

Source:  Northwestern University Press Release, mSystems (peer-reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21-31, 2018)  As we look ahead to the new year, we wish you good health, extend our appreciation for your being a part of the Beyond Pesticides network, and ask you to consider a contribution to Beyond Pesticides. Your support is critical to our program and deeply appreciated.

We approach the new year with a sense of optimism that we will advance our collective will to solve devastating environmental problems. We believe it can be done! But, it takes us all joining together with a strong voice and unified action to stop hazardous practices, while putting safe and sustainable alternatives in place. With your support of Beyond Pesticides, we strive to reverse the destructive environmental and public health path that we’re on.

As a grassroots organization, we work with community-based campaigns and organizations to put organic land management practices in place—in our parks, on playing fields, school grounds, and throughout communities. Together, we eliminate practices that contaminate waterways, put poisons in the air, degrade and destroy life in the soil, and expose us to pesticides that cause or contribute to a range of dreaded diseases like cancer—Parkinson’s, diabetes, reproductive disorders, autism, and more.

• We can change the current course—take the glyphosate/Roundup out of communities, remove the bee-toxic pesticides, eliminate pesticides that kill the soil and aquatic food webs, as well as our gut microbiome—and begin to restore the health of people and the environment.
• We can do this without spending more moneyat the community level because life-sustaining management of our parks and communities utilizes ecosystem services by supporting ecological balance and cycling nutrients in the soil, instead of relying on expensive, synthetic, fossil fuel-based, toxic pesticides and fertilizers.
• We work on the interconnectedness of issues and stress holistic solutionsto the range of seemingly insurmountable environmental problems that we face. We do this through our efforts to push for an urgent transition to organic practices from chemical-intensive land and building management in communities across the country.
• We are helping to establish model communities that show it can be done, like in the city of South Portland, Maine. There, the city council passed a law a couple of years ago to eliminate toxic pesticides throughout the entire municipality, and this year began implementing it with information, factsheets, staff training, plan development, and the launching of a terrific website.

We are making progress in advancing our strategic goal to eliminate toxic pesticide use, with examples in dozens of communities nationwide that are establishing organic land management programs. Your support will help us to reach more communities in the next year.

With your support, we (i) develop community plans to transition to organic management practices, (ii) nurture complex biological communities in nature, in all its beauty and public health and environmental benefits, (iii) train local government staff to understand and adopt soil-based cultural practices for managing parks and playing fields, (iv) protect local and regional waterways, and (v) create an alignment and alliance with the business community (like the local ACE hardware store in Maine, where the owner has transitioned the store’s lawn and garden department to advance organic practices and products).

Your support helps Beyond Pesticides bring to communities the resources necessary to put the organic changes in place. Your support helps us to stop pesticide use and advance organic practices with our programs that:

• Make science on the pesticide problem and solution understandable to the public;
• Support and empower people in their communities;
• Influence decision makers; and,
• Implement on-the-ground practices in communities nationwide

Please check out the latest issue of our journal, Pesticides and You. Our feature article, Pesticide Exposure and the Obesity Pandemic, exemplifies the importance of getting the science out, and this issue adds more evidence of the need for the organic transition.

To further align our work with the medical community, we are co-convening the 37th National Pesticide Forum, Organic Strategies for Community Environmental Health: Eliminating pesticides where we live, work, learn, and play, with the Center for Children’s Environmental Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai, April 5-6, 2019 in New York City. Please consider joining us!

Thank you for considering supporting Beyond Pesticides at the end of the year. For a $150 donation, we will send you Beyond Pesticides’ organic canvas tote bag or our new Organic Landscape sign that displays our blue dragonfly logo.

All best wishes for the holiday season and new year!

(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2019) A study at the University of Maine (UMaine) finds that adding blackberry leaf litter in stormwater catch basins creates an “ecological trap,” enticing mosquito females to lay eggs in sites unsuitable for larvae survival. Employing this new and incredibly viable “attract-and-kill’ tool for mosquito control shows potential for preventing the breeding of mosquitoes that may carry insect-borne diseases, especially in urban environments. Stormwater catch basins regularly accumulate leaf litter, which serve as habitat for the mosquito species Culex pipiens (Cx. Pipiens) that may carry West Nile virus.

Previous University of Maine research discovered decomposing leaf litter from Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) and common blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis) produces chemical compounds that attracts and stimulates Cx. Pipiens female to oviposit, or lay eggs.

Investigating the attractiveness and lethality of varying catch basin conditions to mosquitoes, researchers hypothesized that blackberry leaf litter could be shown to be lethal to developing mosquito larvae, and, therefore, act as a natural ecological trap for Cx. Pipiens.

Five varying treatments were applied to a total 50 catch basins. Treatments included (1) all debris dredged weekly throughout the duration of the study, (2) no change to debris naturally occurring in catch basins, (3) ecological trap: naturally occurring debris dredged prior to administering 100 grams of fresh blackberry leaves submerged underwater in mesh bags, (4) attractants only: same as previous, except 100 grams of fresh honeysuckle leaves submerged, (5) toxins only: common larvacide Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti) administered, with no additional change to debris.

Catch basins were those on street edges in relatively standard residential neighborhoods. Larvae in catch basins were counted once prior to and four times after treatments had been administered. Floating emergence traps were placed to capture adult mosquitoes. Experiments were repeated across two years to confirm findings.

Results show catch basins with the ecological trap (blackberry leaves) have consistently higher numbers of Cx. pipiens eggs, but very low larvae survival.  Honeysuckle, however, showed high larvae survival and high adult emergence. Most strikingly, ecological trap catch basins showed reduced larvae survival even when combined with equal parts honeysuckle.

In addition, with decomposing leaf litter previously shown to attract Cx. pipiens oviposition, the study also confirms that survival of mosquito larvae, being filter-feeding invertebrates, is dependent mainly on the aquatic habitat containing the appropriate bacterial community to suit the larvae’s nutritional needs. However, suitable bacteria, unlike decomposing leaf litter, do not create chemical attractants. This means Cx. pipiens females select oviposition sites based solely on the presence of decomposing leaf litter, regardless of whether the appropriate bacterial community may be lacking. Thus, researchers suggest Cx. pipiens can be tricked to oviposit in sites incompatible for ensuring larvae survival.

“The abundance of mosquitoes in aquatic habitats and the efficacy of conventional insecticides for juvenile mosquito control are strongly influenced by variables such as rainfall, water chemistry, and the species and structure of terrestrial vegetation in the surrounding environment,” says Allison Gardner, PhD, an assistant professor of arthropod vector biology at UMaine and lead author of the study. “This suggests that ecologically based strategies could [be exploited] for environmentally safe and sustainable mosquito abatement,” Dr. Gardner continued.

Dr. Gardner’s study confirms the importance of understanding the suitability of potential habitat for unwanted insect species. Managing conditions conducive for mosquito species’ proliferation prevents human exposure to mosquito-borne pathogens, as mosquitoes do not travel far from where they hatch.

Conversely, broad-spray, conventional management approaches create insecticide resistance among mosquitoes. They also create toxic conditions that harm non-target species like pollinators, including harms to pets and children.

Meet with elected officials to discuss Beyond Pesticides’ public health mosquito management strategy. Tell them to fix the problem conditions that lead to mosquito proliferation in your neighborhood and not to waste more time and money on routine insecticide spraying. Help them understand what attracts mosquitoes to an area, and what sustains them. Talk with city officials about developing novel and intuitive “attract-and-kill” mosquito management strategies that include blackberry leaves. Teach them that corralling Cx. pipiens eggs into simultaneously attractive and inhospitable habitats would be effective for mosquito management and disease prevention, as it adversely affects Cx. pipiens egg production and reduces larvae survival.

Exploiting ecological traps holds potential for new jobs and volunteer opportunities. Encourage the planting of blackberry bushes in your community. Collect fallen leaves and devise ingenious ways to administer the leaves into catch basins (such as being submerged underwater in mesh bags).

When speaking with neighbors, emphasize the ineffectiveness of pesticides at controlling mosquito populations. Discuss the safer choice. Purchase Beyond Pesticides mosquito doorknob hangers and teach neighbors simple mosquito reduction steps, such as: removing unnecessary debris on your property, and cleaning rain gutters in the spring and fall.  Offer to help elders and disabled members of your community. Work with friends to create a system for effective mosquito prevention.

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

Sources: Phys.org, and The Royal Society

(Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2018) Using low doses of the herbicide paraquat and common proteins found in food called lectins, researchers were able to recreate the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in rats. Results of this study, published in the journal Parkinson’s disease, provide scientists with fresh insights into the development of the disease, and a new model to test potential remedies. Paraquat, a neurotoxic herbicide with a well-established body of literature linking it to Parkinson’s disease, is currently undergoing a registration review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and groups like the Michael J Fox Foundation are calling for its ban.

Researchers based their study on the Braak Staging hypothesis of Parkinson’s, which posits that the disease is brought on by foreign agents entering the body through the gut or nose and making their way to the brain. Rats were exposed to low doses of paraquat combined with lectin every day for a week. After two weeks, the animals’ motor function was tested and compared to an unexposed control group.

Rats exposed to lectin and paraquat exhibited Parkinson-like symptoms. Primary author R. Alberto Travagli, PhD, notes, “After observing that these animals did indeed show symptoms of Parkinsonism, we wanted to double check and make sure we weren’t looking at animals that had these symptoms for another reason.” To check, Dr. Travalgi indicates, “We administered levodopa, which is a common medication for Parkinson’s disease. We saw a return to almost normal types of motor responses, which was a clear indication that we were looking at some sort of Parkinsonism.”

Lectin, which is often found in healthy foods like raw vegetables, eggs, and dairy, combined with paraquat in the gut and triggered the formation of a misfolded protein called alpha-synuclein, a foreign agent that likely plays a role in the development of Parkinson’s. Alpha-synuclein travels from the gut to the brain via the vagus nerve. Thus, to confirm the etiology of the symptoms exposed rats were experiencing, researchers removed the vagus nerve of a population of test rats and administered the same combination of lectin and paraquat. No rats within this group developed Parkinson-like symptoms.

“We were able to demonstrate that if you have oral paraquat exposure, even at very low levels, and you also consume lectins — perhaps in the form of uncooked vegetables, dairy or eggs — then it could potentially trigger the formation of this protein alpha-synuclein in the gut,” said study coauthor Thyagarajan Subramanian. “Once it’s formed, it can travel up the vagus nerve and to the part of the brain that triggers the onset of Parkinson’s disease.”

Scientists also administered both paraquat and lectin alone to rat populations, but did not see the same pathology in either groups tested.

Researchers indicate that these results provide new avenues for intervention to prevent Parkinson’s in humans. For example, there could be dietary changes that could delay onset, or drugs (including antibiotics), such as squalamine, that act to remove alpha-synuclein from the gut.

Any herbicide implicated in the development of a disease, which is expected to double in diagnosis over the next 20 years, raises serious questions about compliance with safety standards. A large body of scientific studies strongly implicates this chemical in the development of Parkinson’s disease. Earlier this year, research published in the journal Cell Reports implicated paraquat for its ability to create senescent cells that cause inflammation in the brain.

Beyond Pesticides strongly supports the Michael J. Fox Foundation’s stance that paraquat should be banned for use in the United States. The chemical has already been banned in the European Union since 2007, yet the United States still imports the chemical from throughout the world.

Join us in urging Congress and EPA to ban the use of paraquat by sending a letter today. And for more information on the connection between pesticides and Parkinson’s see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Penn State Press Release,  Parkinson’s Disease (peer-reviewed journal)

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2018) As the dust still settles on the final Farm Bill, which passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives last week, it is clear that neither the substance nor the process on a range of issues meet the urgent need to address key sustainability issues that put the future in peril.

We must not allow this Farm Bill to be the final word on a number of critical environmental and public health issues facing the nation and world. That is why it is absolutely critical that we get to work immediately, with the new Congress, to set a new course that transforms the institutions of government that are holding back the urgently needed transition to a green economy.

On the Farm Bill, our victories were mostly measured in terms of what we were able to remove from the legislation—not the standard of achievement that we need to face critical environmental threats.

The good. Our major victory in the Farm Bill does not move us forward, but simply protects the status quo of our democracy—protecting the power of states and local government to adopt pesticide restrictions that are more stringent than the federal government. With your help and the help of a broad network of local officials nationwide, we were able to stop a preemption provision from being inserted in the federal pesticide law. Although the victory was in defeating this provision, the chemical industry has awakened a new front in the pesticide reform movement. As a result of this provision, there is new momentum to reassert the rights of local governments and repeal state-level preemption of municipalities. Other environmental setbacks to the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and farmworker protection were taken out of the final bill. A great thanks to those who participated in this important process.

The bad. We were unable to remove an amendment to organic law that introduces confusion on the mandate to sunset all synthetics used in organic agricultural production and processing, forcing the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and USDA to reassess the science and necessity of these inputs with the most rigorous scrutiny by requiring a super-majority vote of the board every five years to allow continued use of these synthetics—the same standard used when synthetics are initially petitioned. The growth of organic is essential to solving our key environmental challenges, from the dramatic decline in biodiversity to global climate change. Nothing should be done to undercut the integrity of the organic standard setting process. Additionally, new language in the organic law allows farmer, handler, and retailer positions on the NOSB to be filled by employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers, making the decision making process less robust.

The ugly. The Farm Bill sets policy on food and farm issues for the next five years and should not be the result of backroom negotiations in Congress, as it was this round. Important and controversial issues deserve public hearings in which all members of Congress and the public can participate, and all perspectives can be heard.

More on organic. There were some “wins” for organic in continued funding for programs important to organic production and research, and necessary improvements to oversight and enforcement of organic imports.

New leadership. Increasing support is being shown for a proposal by U.S. Representative-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York to form a House Select Committee for a Green New Deal that addresses economic and environmental reforms while ensuring a functioning democracy. A Green New Deal  provides a framework for supporting agriculture that helps farmers, consumers, and the environment by advancing organic agriculture. In the words of commentator and former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower, “Everybody does better when everybody does better.” We need new food and farm policy that benefits all farmers and consumers.

After the new 116^th Congress begins on January 3, 2019, you will be hearing from Beyond Pesticides on a range of critical issues that have gotten unsatisfactory attention in the Farm Bill and other legislation and regulations.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 18, 2018) The ingredients not listed on a pesticide product are not fully reviewed for their adverse effects may be the most toxic chemicals in the formulation. Recent research, Toxicity of formulants and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides and other pesticides (Toxicology Reports 5, 2018), by Defarge, de Vendômois, and Séralini demonstrates the need to disclose and test all ingredients in pesticide products, as well as the full formulation that includes “inert” or nondisclosed ingredients. While glyphosate/Roundup is obviously not allowed to be used in organic production, this research reaffirms the need to evaluate full formulations of substances allowed for use in organic.

The research on glyphosate tested the toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate, “inerts” in glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), and the pesticide formulations–looking at toxicity to target organisms, toxicity to human cells, and endocrine-disrupting activity. In addition to the GBH products, the researchers studied a number of other pesticides.

Tell NOP and USDA that “inerts” used in organic production must receive full review by the NOSB.

“Inert” ingredients are allowed in pesticides used in organic production as well as those used in chemical-intensive production. The National Organic Program (NOP) allows “inerts,” permitted in conventional production and formerly listed on EPA’s List 4, “inerts of minimal concern,” as well as a few formerly listed on List 3, “inerts of unknown toxicity,” to be used in organic production. Because the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) are much more restrictive than those used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pesticides, and given changes in how the agency categorizes “inerts,” the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has adopted a series of recommendations since 2010 that established a substance review process as part of the five-year cycle of sunset review. The NOSB has voted overwhelmingly to require review of all individual “inerts” used in organic production, but NOP has refused to move forward.

Although GBH products are not permitted in organic production, the results of the Defarge et al. study are relevant to decisions concerning materials used in organic crops and livestock. The scientists found that for GBH products, glyphosate was not the major toxic component–to either plants or human cells–and that formulations, as well as glyphosate alone, are endocrine disruptors at low concentrations. Glyphosate alone did not show herbicidal effects on tomato plants for five days following application. Formulations that included POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine) are the most toxic to plants and human cells, and POEA itself is highly toxic to plants and animals. GBH formulations are no more toxic to plants than the formulants (“inert” ingredients). The researchers concluded, “Hence G [glyphosate] did not appear to be the main active substance of the herbicide, but rather the formulants.”

The researchers also identified a number of other toxic substances in the products, including arsenic, chromium, cobalt, nickel, and lead. Arsenic was present in almost all samples.

This research calls into question the fundamental principles embodied in federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which distinguishes  “active” ingredients, those ingredients in pesticide products for which pesticidal activity is claimed, from “inert” ingredients, now labeled “other ingredients.” “Inert” ingredients receive minimal review (to establish tolerances), compared to “active” ingredients, and are protected from disclosure on the product label as proprietary manufacturer information. It reinforces why the NOSB and NOP cannot rely on the standards that govern the use or allowance of pesticides under pesticide law.

This research also challenges the apparent assumption by NOP that “inert” ingredients are less important to review than “active” ingredients. The “active” ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production receive intense scrutiny before the NOSB allows their use. However, “inert” ingredients –which, as the Defarge et al. study demonstrates, may actually be the active ingredients— have not received any scrutiny by the NOSB for compliance with OFPA criteria.

NOP must act on the NOSB recommendations that “inert” ingredients used in organic production be reviewed by the NOSB according to OFPA criteria by putting review of these materials on the NOSB work agenda.

Tell NOP and USDA that “inerts” used in organic production must receive full review by the NOSB.

Letter to National Organic Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue:

I am concerned that the National Organic Program (NOP) has not followed through with recommendations from its advisory board, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), to fully review “inert” ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production according to the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act. Recent research underlines the importance of this review.

The ingredients not listed on a pesticide product are not fully reviewed for their adverse effects may be the most toxic chemicals in the formulation. Recent research, Toxicity of formulants and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides and other pesticides (Toxicology Reports 5, 2018), by Defarge, de Vendômois, and Séralini demonstrates the need to disclose and test all ingredients in pesticide products, as well as the full formulation that includes “inert” or nondisclosed ingredients. While glyphosate/Roundup is obviously not allowed to be used in organic production, this research reaffirms the need to evaluate full formulations of substances allowed for use in organic.

The research on glyphosate tested the toxicity of the herbicide glyphosate, “inerts” in glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH), and the pesticide formulations–looking at toxicity to target organisms, toxicity to human cells, and endocrine-disrupting activity.

“Inert” ingredients are allowed in pesticides used in organic production as well as those used in chemical-intensive production. NOP allows “inerts” permitted in converntional production and formerly listed on EPA’s List 4, “inerts of minimal concern,” as well as a few formerly listed on List 3, “inerts of unknown toxicity,” to be used in organic production. Because the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) are much more restrictive than those used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pesticides and given changes in how the agency categorizes “inerts,” the NOSB has adopted a series of recommendations since 2010 that established a substance review process as part of the five year cycle of sunset review. The NOSB has voted overwhelmingly to require review of all individual “inerts” used in organic production, but NOP has refused to move forward.

Although GBH products are not permitted in organic production, the results of the Defarge et al study are relevant to decisions concerning materials used in organic crops and livestock. The researchers also identified a number of other toxic substances in the products, including arsenic, chromium, cobalt, nickel, and lead. Arsenic was present in almost all samples.

This research calls into question the fundamental principles embodied in federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which distinguishes  “active” ingredients, those ingredients in pesticide products for which pesticidal activity is claimed, from “inert” ingredients, now labeled “other ingredients.” “Inert” ingredients receive minimal review (to establish tolerances), compared to “active” ingredients, and are protected from disclosure on the product label as proprietary manufacturer information. It reinforces why the NOSB and NOP cannot rely on the standards that govern the use or allowance of pesticides under pesticide law.

This research also challenges the apparent assumption by NOP that “inert” ingredients are less important to review than “active” ingredients. The “active” ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production receive intense scrutiny before the NOSB allows their use. However, “inert” ingredients –which, as the Defarge et al. study demonstrates, may actually be the active ingredients— have not received any scrutiny by the NOSB for compliance with OFPA criteria.

I request that NOP act on the NOSB recommendations that “inert” ingredients used in organic production undergo NOSB review by putting an assessment of these materials on the NOSB work agenda.

Sincerely,