(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2017) The Trump Administration is asking a federal court to delay a prior agreement that National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issue findings on the risk of three highly toxic organophosphate pesticides to endangered species. The move is widely seen by environmental advocates as influenced by the chemical industry, in particular the new agrichemical conglomerate DowDuPont, which completed a megamerger in September. The Trump Administration’s ongoing willingness to do the bidding of the chemical and pesticide industry means that voters must speak out to their elected representatives to stem the tide of chemical poisonings in the U.S.

In 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its failure to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which requires the agency’s pesticide registration process to include consultations with federal wildlife agencies, including NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service. In this case, the pesticides in question are chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon, three highly toxic chemicals used as nerve agents during WW2 and registered as pesticides since the 1960s. EPA’s failure to consult with these agencies is a chronic problem in the pesticide registration and review process, leaving critical gaps in the protection of endangered species, and costing taxpayers significant sums when a lawsuit is the only option to force agency compliance with the law. CBD’s lawsuit resulted in an agreement that EPA would complete its assessment by the end of 2017.

Under Section 7 of ESA, any agency action must find that it “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat.” Earlier this year, EPA released its first biological evaluation analyzing “nation-wide effects” of the three chemicals, as required by the settlement agreement, finding that chlorpyrifos and malathion are likely to have a detrimental effect on 97% of endangered species, with diazinon likely to adversely affect 78%.

After EPA’s evaluation, NMFS is required to analyze EPA’s data and come up with actions that would limit the effect of these chemicals on endangered species habitat. Earlier this year, Dow Chemical asked the Trump Administration to: (i) ignore EPA’s evaluation; (ii) set aside the development of any NMFS actions that would address concerns in the evaluation; and (iii) file a court motion requesting a delay of NMFS 2017 deadline.

Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to ignore the agency’s own science in its decision to permit the continued use of chlorpyrifos in agriculture. There is no indication whether NMFS continued to work on any actions related to EPA’s biological evaluation (as outlined in request (ii)), but the Trump Administration is now fulfilling its third request from Dow by filing a motion to delay NMFS 2017 deadline. If the court agrees with the Trump Administration and grants a delay, it will be another two years before the roughly 1,800 endangered species throughout the U.S. are protected from these toxic chemicals.

It should be noted that Dow Chemical contributed $1 million dollars to President Trump’s inauguration day festivities, and the company’s CEO held a  closed door meeting with EPA Administrator Pruitt only 20 days before the agency’s decision to allow continued use of chlorpyrifos.

Fight back against industry influence in our governmental decisions by urging your Senator to co-sponsor a bill to ban chlorpyrifos. The “Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act,” S. 1624, will prohibit all chlorpyrifos use in agriculture, and direct EPA to partner with the National Research Council to assess the neurodevelopmental and other low-dose effects of exposure to organophosphate pesticides to agricultural workers and children. Introduced by Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), current co-sponsors include Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Request that  your Senator co-sponsor this legislation by taking action today.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, November 16, 2017) With a petition signed by over one million people, farming, consumer, and environmental groups called on the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) this week to block the proposed merger of Bayer (BAYN) and Monsanto (MON). The signatures were delivered as two new reports reveal devastating impacts that will be caused by the merger on consumers and farmers, including higher food prices, less innovation, limited seed choices, and escalating dependency of toxic chemical inputs in food production.

 On Tuesday November 14, 2017, Friends of the Earth, SumOfUs and the Open Markets Institute released an analysis, “Bayer-Monsanto Merger: Big Data, Big Agriculture, Big Problems,” which  explores the implications of a combined biotechnology, chemical, and seed platform owned by Bayer and Monsanto and how it may impact competition and farmer choice. The release of the analysis coincided with a hearing on technology in agriculture and data-driven farming in the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation.

Consumer Federation of America also released a report, “Mega-Mergers in the U.S. Seed and Agrochemical Sector the Political Economy of Tight Oligopolies on Steroids and the Squeeze on Farmers and Consumers.” The report uses the concept of a “tight oligopoly on steroids” to examine how the unique characteristics of the Bayer-Monsanto merger magnify their market power in the seed/agrochemical sector and squeeze farmers and consumers.

In late 2016, Monsanto and Bayer announced a $66 billion merger. The Department of Justice is in the midst of reviewing it, and a decision is expected in late 2017. Should Bayer and Monsanto merge, the entity will become:
•    The world’s largest vegetable seed company, with a virtual lock on broccoli, carrots, and onions.
•    The world’s largest cotton seed company, responsible for the seed for about 70% of all the cotton grown in the US.
•    Along with another company (Dow-DuPont), control 77% of all the seed corn in the U.S.
•    The world’s largest manufacturer and seller of herbicides.
•    The world’s largest owner of the intellectual property/patents for herbicide tolerance seed traits: 69% of all herbicide tolerance traits approved for use in the U.S. for alfalfa, canola, cotton, corn, soybean, and wheat.

Farmers can expect increased seed prices, reduced availability of untreated, non-genetically engineered (GE) seed, greater reliance on pesticides and exposures to farmworkers and the environment. Increased cost of farming will be passed on to consumers, and organic foods will face additional difficulties as the market dominance of GE crops is consolidated and deepened. There are fears that a farming system dominated by GE seeds and pesticide-intensive production will lead to increased contamination of the environment due to pesticide and genetic drift, water contamination, and impacts to non-target organisms.

“Bayer and Monsanto’s toxic mega-merger is a danger to our planet and everyone living on it,” said Erich Pica, president with Friends of the Earth. “Over on million Americans have called on the Department of Justice to protect our farmers and families from the consolidation of corporate power. Bayer and Monsanto’s merger is a direct threat to the future of people and our environment. The Justice Department must put on the breaks and stop this merger.”

State attorneys general (AGs) have already joined together to investigate federal antitrust concerns related to the mergers of the agrichemical giants. These states are concerned that, following as merger, the entities may increase the cost of farm inputs and have less incentive to compete to introduce better and cheaper products. The involvement of the state AGs will increase scrutiny of these mega deals, as they were previously only being reviewed at the federal level by antitrust experts at the Department of Justice. While it will ultimately be up to DOJ to decide to challenge either of the mergers, the state AG offices will be crucial in providing information on how the mergers fall under their jurisdiction. This method of investigation has worked to stop mergers in the past, when DOJ, with help from the states, sued to stop two controversial health insurance provider deals in Aetna Inc’s plan to buy Humana Inc. and Anthem Inc.’s bid for Cigna Corp. In that case,  11 states and the District of Columbia joined the federal government in the Anthem lawsuit, while eight states and Washington, DC, joined the Aetna lawsuit.

Petitions were collected by Action Aid, Avaaz, Center for Food Safety, Clif Bar Family Foundation/Seed Matters, CREDO, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Organic Consumers Association, Organic Seed Alliance, Pesticide Action Network North America, Rural Advancement Foundation International, Sierra Club and SumOfUS. Beyond Pesticides, through its Action of  the Week, generated thousands of comments to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in opposition to the merger.

Take Action: Tell the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to stop the Bayer-Monsanto merger, which would have severe repercussions for farmers and consumers.

You can also reach out to your U.S.  Senators and  Representative to ask them to oppose the approval of a merger that consolidates seed availability. Encourage them to support the increased availability of organic seeds, which do not adversely affect soil, water or human health. Additionally, reach out to your state AG office  and encourage them to join the merger investigations to ensure that the DOJ takes action to block the mergers.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 15, 2017) Songbirds exposed to widely used insecticides fail to properly orient themselves for migration, according to a study published by Canadian scientists in Scientific Reports. With the organophosphate chlorpyrifos and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid applied to millions of acres of farmland throughout North America, this new research adds weight to arguments that pesticides are a likely cause in the decline of migratory bird populations. “Studies on the risks of neonicotinoids have often focused on bees that have been experiencing population declines. However, it is not just bees that are being affected by these insecticides,” said Christy Morrissey, PhD, biology professor at the University of Saskatchewan.

Researchers captured 57 white crowned sparrows in northern Canada, and held them in an outdoor pen for roughly two weeks, during which time all the birds either gained or maintained their weight. The songbirds were then split into three groups, one exposed to imidacloprid, another to chlorpyrifos, and the last untreated and acting as a control. The imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos exposed groups were each further separated by exposing a portion to the insecticide at 10% of the lethal dose that would kill 50% of a given population (LD50), and another to 25% of the LD50. According to the study, at those rates, the 10% dose was like the sparrows eating four treated canola seeds or less than a tenth of a corn seed, while the 25% dose was like the birds eating nine treated canola seeds or two tenths of a treated corn seed. Both insecticides are commonly used to treat the outside of crop seeds before planting. Over 90% of corn and canola seeds are likely to have neonicotinoids dusted onto them, despite strong evidence that it does nothing to improve yields.

Given that the exposure scenarios are similar to what these songbirds would come in contact with during the normal migration season, bird lovers are likely to find the study’s results deeply disturbing. Sparrows in the 10% imidacloprid group lost nearly a fifth of their weight within three days, while those in the 25% group lost over a quarter. Weight returned to normal within two weeks after dosing, but during that time, two birds had to be euthanized due to breathing problems, two birds were found dead, and seven developed excessive salivation and foaming at the mouth. In both the 10% and 25% chlorpyrifos-treated groups, weight decreased slightly, though there was no mortality or outward signs of acute poisoning.

Both insecticides, however, had significant effects on migration. Before insecticide exposure, all groups were able to successfully orient northward. Although, after imidacloprid treatments, both the 10% and 25% groups were unable to orient themselves, or when orienting were 75° off of north. While the imidacloprid treatment group was able to recover orientation abilities after two weeks, the chlorpyrifos exposed group did not orient after exposure and did not recover their orientation at all after two weeks.

A study published in 2013 in PLOS ONE by another group of Canadian scientists found that pesticide exposure ranked above even habitat loss when investigating the cause of songbird declines in the U.S. Coauthor of the study, Margaret End, PhD, noted that, “The effects we saw were severe enough that the birds would likely experience migratory delays or changes in their flight routes that could reduce their chance of survival, or cause a missed breeding opportunity.”

In 1962, Rachael Carson challenged society to envision a world without birdsong, “a spring without voices.” With reports of rapid, global population declines in song birds, pollinators, and the entire insect community, many concerned residents in the U.S. wonder whether we have truly made progress after public backlash removed DDT and certain other organochlorine insecticides from the market. With the range of adverse effects seen from exposure to these newer chemistries, neonicotinoids and organophosphates, the question does warrant consideration.

Consideration, but not despair. Rather than support the whack-a-mole approach that powerful chemical companies continue to foist on the public, where one chemical is replaced with another only after years of research finds it should not have been approved in the first place, consumers have the opportunity to support a different kind of agriculture. When making your decision at the grocery store, your food dollars decide whether to support a production system that relies upon incessant chemical use that causes yet still untold harm the natural world. Whenever possible, purchase organic, which never allows toxic synthetic insecticides to be used, because a silent spring is still a strong possibility.

Source: University of Saskatchewan Press Release

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2017) The European Commission has again been unable to come to a consensus over renewing approval for Monsanto’s popular herbicide,  glyphosate.  Member states voted last week, but failed to approve, continued use even after months of deliberation over the controversial herbicide. Glyphosate (Roundup) is also up for review in the U.S., but many expect the herbicide to be reregistered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), despite health concerns.

The proposal to renew the European Union (EU) license for glyphosate for another five years failed to a reach a qualified majority, meaning a decision has again been postponed, according to reports. The current license is due to expire on December 15, 2017, but there is an 18-month grace period. Fourteen countries voted in favor of the renewal, nine against, while five, including Germany, abstained from voting. According to reports, a qualified majority requires that 55 percent of EU countries vote in favor and that the proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65 percent of the total EU population. France, which voted against the proposal, said it would only support a renewal for three-year phase-out. The proposal could now be referred to an appeals committee, or alternatively, the Commission could draw up a new proposal for another vote.

Monsanto has been embroiled in controversy after its attempts to unduly influence and undermine scientific research that has found its product to be harmful to humans. In 2015 the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.” That conflicted with findings from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency, which said the substance was not likely to cause cancer in humans. But, it was later revealed that EFSA copied dozens of pages from a Monsanto study in reaching its conclusion that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” EFSA’s recommendation is supposed to provide an independent analysis for EU member states. In a similar case documenting Monsanto’s influence, the New York Times reported on Monsanto’s internal emails and email traffic between the company and U.S. federal regulators that suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research on glyphosate (Roundup), which was later attributed to academics. Just last month, the European Parliament banned Monsanto lobbyists from committee meetings and digital resources, as well as no longer permitting Monsanto lobbyists to meet with any Member of the European Parliament. This was an attempt to limit Monsanto’s influence on the EU review process amid mounting public pressure against the relicensing of glyphosate.

Last month, the European Parliament voted to ban glyphosate by 2022 amid concerns that it causes cancer. The vote was not binding, but it increased the pressure on the European Commission, which had previously recommended renewing the herbicide’s license for 10 years. It then reduced its recommendation to five years, which failed to reach a majority last week. In 2016, 48 members of the EU Parliament from 13 different countries had their urine tested for traces of the herbicide and every test turned up positive. The average concentration was 17 times higher than the European drinking water norm.

Earlier this year, California declared glyphosate a carcinogen under the state’s Proposition 65 law, following the IARC classification of glyphosate. Glyphosate has historically been touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by EPA and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a “probable” carcinogen indicates that glyphosate is anything but safe. According to IARC, being a “probable carcinogen” means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In its report, the agency did note that glyphosate has been linked DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The best way to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides is to support organic practices in landscapes and agriculture and purchase organic food. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and research shows that organic land management does a better job of protecting biodiversity than its chemical-intensive counterparts. Instead of the prophylactic use of pesticides and crops bioengineered with insecticides, responsible organic practices focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and ecological balance and only resort to the judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate continues to mount, environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to ban or restrict the use of the chemical and other toxic synthetic pesticides.

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

Source: Deutsche Welle;  BBC News

(Beyond Pesticides, November 13, 2017) Proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger is bad for farmers, bad for consumers. Tell the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to Block This Dangerous Merger!

(Beyond Pesticides, November 10, 2017) On the heels of Beyond Pesticides’ campaign to ban the herbicide dicamba –with thousands of people urging the state to act in the of massive crop damage, the Arkansas State Plant Board (ASPB) voted earlier this week to prohibit the use of the weedkiller in agriculture during the next growing season. If officially approved by a subcommittee of the state legislature, the new regulations will make dicamba applications between April 16 and October 31, 2018, illegal for Arkansas farmers. The move by the State Plant Board is a huge blow to multinational agrichemical companies Monsanto and BASF, both of which have developed genetically engineered (GE) soybean crops tolerant of dicamba herbicides.

Dicamba has been linked to damage of the kidney and liver, neurotoxicity, and developmental impacts. The chemical has a strong propensity to volatilize small particles of the herbicide into the air and drift far off-site. Sensitive crop species can be damaged by dicamba at levels in the parts per million.

According to ASPB, during the public comment period over 29,000 individuals provided input, with the overwhelming majority in strong support of the state’s plan to restrict the herbicide. Perhaps in anticipation of the action, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against ASPB for the temporary ban it passed on dicamba herbicides during this current growing season. Like with the recent determination by the state of California that Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide is carcinogenic, the agrichemical giant appears more than willing to use the courts in attempts to bully states into accepting its toxic products. Advocates hope that the corporation’s lawsuit against ASPB will turn out the way it did in California –a failure.

“It is true that the plant board has looked at exhaustive research. They have taken an exhaustive and thorough look at opinions, and where they are at today is a continued use of restrictions for dicamba in Arkansas,” spokesperson for ASPB Adriane Barnes told Arkansas Public Media.

Organic and conventional non-GE farmers, as well as consumer health and safety groups, are applauding ASPB for moving forward with restrictions, and hope that the action will encourage other states to follow Arkansas’ lead. Over 3.6 million acres of crops in the U.S. were damaged by dicamba exposure this year, according to Reuters, and the crisis stretched beyond Arkansas into neighboring states of Missouri, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Earlier this year, Missouri announced a temporary “Stop Sale, Use or Removal Order” on all dicamba products in the state labeled for agricultural use.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced new regulations that would make dicamba formulations applied to GE crops “restricted use,” and only allowed to be applied by state certified applicators, the measure has been widely viewed as insufficient to address the scale of the problem. And evidence is mounting that, despite claims by Monsanto that its older dicamba formulations or improper applications is causing the crisis, Monsanto’s proprietary dicamba and glyphosate formulation, Xtend, does volatilize enough to cause drift damage.

While chemical companies like Monsanto tout their new line of GE products as the solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds, the fact remains that GE agriculture, by developing crops specifically engineered to tolerate repeated sprayings of glyphosate, brought about resistant weeds in the first place. The good news is that more and more farmers are looking to alternative cropping systems to control resistant weeds and improve yields and revenue. Over past couple decades, organic agriculture has grown significantly. Support the future of farming by buying organic products whenever possible. And see Beyond Pesticides Organic program page on why organic is the right choice.

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

Source: Reuters, Arkansas Public Media

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2017) Vietnam veterans suffering from certain Agent Orange-related health conditions will continue to wait for compensation. U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Secretary David Shulkin announced last week he intends to delay a decision to expand coverage to new illnesses. Despite a robust review by the National Academy of Medicine, which recommended expanding disability compensation for bladder cancer, hyopothyroidism, high blood pressure, and Parkinson’s-like tremors due to past exposure to the toxic herbicide cocktail, the VA decided to take no action.

“After thoroughly reviewing the National Academy of Medicine (NAM)’s latest report regarding Veterans and Agent Orange, and associated data and recommendations from the NAM Task Force, I have made a decision to further explore new presumptive conditions for service connection that may ultimately qualify for disability compensation,”  Secretary Shulkin said in a press release last week.  “I appreciate NAM’s work and the commitment and expertise of VA’s NAM Task Force, and look forward to working with the Administration on the next steps in the process.”

Given a promise from VA Secretary Shulkin to provide a decision on the new ailments by November 1^st, Veterans groups are crying foul, and placing blame on the Trump administration, particularly the Office of Management and Budget, which approves new federal expenditures. “If you can afford the goddamn war, you can afford to take care of the warriors,” Rick Weidman, legislative director of Vietnam Veterans for America said to ProPublica.

Under the Agent Orange Act of 1991, NAM was tasked with publishing biennial reports evaluating current scientific evidence linking Agent Orange of adverse health conditions in veterans. These reports are conducted for 10 years after the release of the first report, and the recent NAM update represented the final assessment. Although released in March of last year, because Congress allowed the law to expire, it eliminated a 60-day deadline for the VA to act on new information raised in the NAM report.

Although the VA will currently cover health care related to 14 conditions, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer, ischemic heart disease, type two diabetes and others, the veterans suffering from hypothyroidism, high blood pressure, tremors without a Parkinson’s diagnosis, and bladder cancer have been denied the ability to receive compensation. An exposé by ProPublica revealed the difficulties veterans have experienced in attempting to receive coverage for bladder cancer diagnoses, despite confirmations from multiple doctors.

Veterans groups hope that Secretary Shulkin will provide a final decision as soon as possible. If ultimately approved, the silver lining in a decision on new covered illnesses is that all expenses associated with the disease will be covered retroactively for veterans that qualify.

Agent Orange was given its name because it was stored in orange striped drums and contained the active ingredients 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T. This formulation was contaminated with the highly toxic 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (also called TCDD or simply dioxin) and is now banned. However, 2,4-D is still one of the most widely used herbicides on lawns, school grounds and parks today. It has been linked to cancer, liver damage and endocrine disruption in humans in addition to being toxic to wildlife, pets and beneficial insects. Moreover, previous research from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did detect dioxin contamination in a number of 2,4-D herbicide products produced for consumer sale.

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

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

Source: VA Press Release, ProPublica

(Beyond Pesticides, November, 8, 2017) Farmers who purchased and handled Monsanto’s new treated seed product, NemaStrike, for nematode or roundworm control (nematicide) have been reporting skin irritation, including rashes that occurred after use. Now the seed giant is pausing a full rollout of the product, while blaming farmers for not using gloves and other protective equipment to handle the treated seeds. This is another blunder from Monsanto and the latest incident highlighting the deficiencies in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide registration process in light of the millions of acres of crop damage from Monsanto products green-lighted by EPA.

While touting that NemaStrike went through three years of extensive field trials and “extensive evaluations” by EPA, Monsanto stated in a bulletin to its customers on its website that it will pause commercialization of the product in light of reports of skin irritation from users. These adverse reactions to the product are being blamed on the failure of users to wear gloves and other protective equipment when handling the treated seeds. This is not the first time that Monsanto has tried to shift responsibility for the toxic effect of its products to users. Last year, Monsanto blamed farmers for drift problems and millions of acres of crop damage caused by its new dicamba product.

NemaStrike is a seed treatment designed to provide broad-spectrum nematode control for corn, soybeans, and cotton. Monsanto said it conducted three years of field trials across the U.S. EPA announced approval of the nematicide, also known as tioxazafen, in May 2017. In its assessment, EPA states that, “Tioxazafen has low acute toxicity by the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It is a mild eye irritant, nonirritating to the skin, and is not a dermal sensitizer.” But the incidents of skin irritation clearly challenges the validity of EPA’s conclusions and underscores the deficiencies of EPA’s risk assessment process. Further, EPA classifies tioxazafen as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” and observed evidence of neurotoxicity (decreased locomotor activity) in acute neurotoxicity studies raising questions as to why such a toxic product was approved for use in the first place.

This is not the first time EPA’s pesticide registration and approval process have come under scrutiny. EPA is repeatedly approving expanded uses of herbicides like dicamba and 2,4-D (Enlist Duo) that have a history of pesticide drift and plant damage in order to help stem the proliferation of glyphosate (Roundup)-resistant weeds. Despite the dangers associated with their use, and warnings from farmers, advocacy groups, and scientists, EPA continues to sanction the increased uses of more highly toxic and volatile pesticide mixtures. More than 1,400 official complaints of crop damage related to dicamba have been recorded across 17 states this year, leading to questions about the new formulation of the chemical used on genetically engineered (GE) crops. New GE crops developed by Monsanto must be paired with specific formulations of dicamba, thus leading to a vast increase in dicamba use over the last growing season. EPA also “rigorously” reviewed the new dicamba formulations and despite evidence of the high volatility of the chemical and its propensity to drift and damage crops, approved expanded uses of the new formulation. Now Monsanto and others are making label changes to address the rampant drift issues associated with the use of their products – changes criticized for actually  preventing drift. However, this could have been avoided if EPA took a more precautionary and proactive approach to dealing with pesticide drift issues. Now it is left to states to try to protect farmers from dicamba drift. Already, Arkansas and Missouri have issued bans on the sale and use of dicamba.

In 2014, EPA took action against DuPont over the use of its conditionally approved product, Imprelis, which was responsible for the death of millions of trees. EPA contended that DuPont failed to submit in a timely manner field trial studies indicating potential ecological adverse effects from the use of Imprelis. However, many criticized EPA for approving the product without first obtaining all the relevant ecological information, an occurrence that is all too common in registration approvals. That is, EPA routinely approves the sale and use of pesticide products that have not been fully evaluated for all potential human and ecological risks, including impacts to non-target organisms like pollinators.

A large shift in agricultural practices is necessary to ensure the protection of human health and the environment over the long-term. Beyond Pesticides has long supported organic land management as a systems approach that values healthy, biologically active soils to support plant life and provide critical environmental benefits. It is through this soil based systems approach that we will eliminate toxic chemicals in land management, which have been identified as a driver in soil contamination and loss of microbial and faunal diversity.

Ecological pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive are the most appropriate and long-term solution to managing unwanted plants and insects. Beyond Pesticides is working to strengthen organic farming systems by encouraging biodiversity and holistic management practices, and upholding the spirit and values on which the organic law was founded. Underpinning the success of organic in the U.S. are small-scale producers who focus on fostering biodiversity, limiting external inputs, improving soil health, sequestering carbon, and using integrated holistic approaches to managing pests, weeds, and disease.

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

Source: Reuters,  EcoWatch

(Beyond Pesticides, November 7, 2017) At the end of a contentious meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) that resulted in a de facto approval of hydroponics in organic production, retiring board member Francis Thicke, Ph.D., in one of the farmer positions, highlighted ways that big ag has perverted the mission of organic, as originally conceived by organic practitioners, consumers, and environmentalists. Dr. Thicke mentioned “organic” CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) dairies with 15,000 cows in a desert feedlot, “organic” chicken CAFOs without outdoor access, fraud in “organic” grain shipments, and, now, “organic” hydroponics. His frustrations mirror those of hundreds who protested against “organic” hydroponics at the Jacksonville, Florida meeting and in written comments.

Beyond Pesticides continues to believe that organic is the solution to pesticide poisoning and contamination and works to ensure the integrity of USDA organic label, while seeking to strengthen it through the public NOSB process and legislative initiatives. At the same time, we share Dr. Thicke’s frustrations with the influence of big business and continue to promote consumer actions, litigation, and organizing strategies to thwart the takeover of organic by big ag.

We have important work to do to ensure organic integrity. We all play a role in making our voice heard. To that end, Beyond Pesticides maintains a webpage called Keeping Organic Strong, where you can learn about the critical issues before the NOSB and how to participate in protecting and strengthening organic standards.

Closing comments of Francis Thicke at end of NOSB term
November 2, 2017

There are two important things that I have learned during my five years on the NOSB. First, I learned that the NOSB review process for materials petitioned for inclusion on the National List is quite rigorous, with Technical Reviews of petitioned materials and careful scrutiny by both NOSB subcommittees and the full board.

The second thing I learned, over time, is that industry has an outsized and growing influence on USDA—and on the NOSB (including through NOSB appointments)—compared to the influence of organic farmers, who started this organic farming movement. Perhaps that is not surprising, given the growing value of organic sales. As organic is becoming a $50 billion business, the industry not only wants a bigger piece of the pie, they seem to want the whole pie.

We now have “organic” chicken CAFOs with 200,000 birds crammed into a building with no real access to the outdoors, and a chicken industry working behind the scenes to make sure that the animal welfare standards—weak as they were—never see the light of day, just like their chickens. The image consumers have of organic chickens ranging outside has been relegated to pictures on egg cartoons.

We have “organic” dairy CAFOs with 15,000 cows in a feedlot in a desert, with compelling evidence by an investigative reporter that the CAFO is not meeting the grazing rule—by a long shot. But when USDA does its obligatory “investigation,” instead of a surprise visit to the facility, USDA gives them a heads up by making an appointment, so the CAFO can move cows from feedlots to pasture on the day of inspection. This gives a green light to that dairy CAFO owner to move forward with its plans to establish a 30,000-cow facility in the Midwest.

We have large grain shipments coming into the US that are being sold as organic but that lack organic documentation. Some shipments have been proven to be fraudulent. The USDA has been slow to take action to stop this, and organic crop farmers in the US are suffering financially as a result. I spoke with the reporter who broke the story on fraudulent “organic” grain imports. I asked him how he was able to document the fraud of grain shipments when USDA said it was very difficult to do so. He replied “it was easy.”

We have a rapidly growing percentage of the organic fruits and vegetables on grocery store shelves being produced hydroponically, without soil, and mostly in huge industrial-scale facilities. And we have a hydroponics industry that has deceptively renamed “hydroponic” production—even with 100% liquid feeding—as “container” production. With their clever deception they have been able to bamboozle even the majority of NOSB members into complicity with their goal of taking over the organic fruit and vegetable market with their hydroponic products.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to find that big business is taking over the USDA organic program because the influence of money is corroding all levels of our government. At this point, I can see only one way to bring the organic label back in line with the original vision of organic farmers and consumers. We need an add-on organic label for organic farmers who are willing to meet the expectations of discerning consumers who are demanding real organic food.

A year ago I wouldn’t have supported the idea of an add-on organic label because I, like many others, had seen the USDA organic label as the gold standard, and had hoped that through our vision of the process of continuous improvement we could really make it into that gold standard. Now I can see that the influence of big business is not going to let that happen. The USDA is increasingly exerting control over the NOSB, and big business is tightening its grip on the USDA and Congress. Recently industry representatives have publicly called on the US Senate to weaken the NOSB and give industry a stronger role in the National Organic Program. And sympathetic Senators promised to do just that.

I now support the establishment of an add-on organic label that will enable real organic farmers and discerning organic consumers to support one another through a label that represents real organic food. I support the creation of a label, such as the proposed Regenerative Organic Certification, that will ensure organic integrity; for example, that animals have real access to the outdoors to be able to express their natural behaviors, and that food is grown in soil. My hopes are that this add-on certification can be seamlessly integrated with the NOP certification, so that a single farm organic system plan and inspection can serve to verify both NOP and the higher level organic certification, by certifiers that are accredited by both certification systems.

I also am pleased that organic farmers have recently organized themselves into the Organic Farmers Association (OFA), to better represent themselves in the arena of public policy. Too often in the past the interests of big business have overruled the interests of organic farmers—and consumers—when organic policies are being established in Washington. I hope this will allow organic farmers to gain equal footing with industry on issues that affect the organic community.

In summary, organic is at a crossroads. Either we can continue to allow industry interests to bend and dilute the organic rules to their benefit, or organic farmers—working with organic consumers–can step up and take action to ensure organic integrity into the future.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 6, 2017) The next Farm Bill will be up for negotiation soon. Bi-partisan legislation to address two issues that are important for organic agriculture –increasing funding for organic research and strengthening enforcement of the organic standards:

1. The Organic Agriculture Research Act (H.R. 2436) will provide $50 million in funding annually for the USDA’s flagship organic research program, the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI).
2.  The Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act of 2017 will improve oversight of organic imports.

This action will allow you to send messages to your U.S. Representative requesting that they co-sponsor the bills or thanking the member if she/he is already a co-sponsor.

Ask your U.S. Representative to support organic in the next Farm Bill by co-sponsoring these two bills. If your Representative is already a co-sponsor, send a thank you.

Organic is one of the fastest growing sectors in U.S. agriculture. The bi-partisan Organic Agriculture Research Act (H.R. 2436) introduced by U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME) will help more farmers transition to organic production in response to growing demand in the marketplace. Organic research helps farmers become more productive, efficient, and profitable and leads to the development of new agricultural practices that can be used by conventional and organic farmers alike. Unfortunately, over the past five years, while overall funding for agricultural research has grown significantly, funding for organic research has stagnated. This bill would go a long way toward closing that gap. The Organic Agriculture Research Act has 39 co-sponsors, and the list is growing.

Another bill, the Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 3871), introduced by Representative John Faso (R-NY) is needed to strengthen oversight of the $47 billion organic industry. Strengthening enforcement of the organic standards, especially for imported organic products, is critical to safeguard the integrity of the organic label and to ensure consumer trust. A recent Washington Post investigation and USDA’s own investigations have shown that some imported organic products have been fraudulently labeled. A report from the USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) revealed areas that need to be improved in the oversight of international organic trade and the enforcement of organic standards for imported organic products. Organic farms and operations that comply with the stringent organic standards are undercut when they are forced to compete with fraudulent products in the marketplace. The Organic Farmer and Consumer Protection Act has 20 co-sponsors, and the list is growing.

Ask your U.S. Representative to support organic in the next Farm Bill by co-sponsoring these two bills. If your representative is already a co-sponsor, send a thank you

(Beyond Pesticides, November 3, 2017) Eating foods high in pesticide residue is associated with a lower probability of live births and a higher probability of pregnancy loss for women using in vitro fertilization and other techniques in attempts to become pregnant, according to new research published by Harvard University doctors in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Internal Medicine in late October. While eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables remains part of a healthy lifestyle, this new research, the first to evaluate the relationship between dietary pesticide exposure and reproductive success in women, raises serious concerns.

“I was always skeptical that pesticide residues in foods would have any impact on health whatsoever,” says Jorge Chavarro, MD, co-author of the research and professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health to TIME. “So when we started doing this work a couple of years ago, I thought we were not going to find anything. I was surprised to see anything as far as health outcomes are concerned.”

Scientists began with a group of 325 women enrolled in an ongoing research project, called the Environment and Reproductive Health (EARTH) study at a fertility research and teaching hospital. Each woman enrolled in the project filled out an extensive questionnaire on their reproductive history and lifestyle habits. Data were also recorded on each participant’s height, weight, and body mass index.

For the current study, researchers collected additional information on each woman’s typical diet, including how often they consumed certain foods, beverages, and supplements over the past year. To measure the impact of pesticide residues in these foods on reproductive success, scientists used the Pesticide Residue Burden Score (PRBS). Using information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program, which tracks pesticide residue on foods sold in the U.S., fruits and vegetables were categorized into distinct PRBS categories, ranging from one -being the least contaminated, to six -being the most contaminated. (See Table 1 in the study, or to the right for the PRBS of each fruit and vegetable.)

Results show, after adjusting for a range of confounders, that women who eat more conventional fruits and vegetables (more than 2.3 servings per day) with a score of 4 or above on the PRBS had a 18% lower probability of clinical pregnancy and a 26% lower chance of live birth. However, participants in the study who report eating the lowest number of high pesticide residue fruits and vegetables (one or less servings per day) do not have any statistical association concerning successful birth outcomes. Researchers found that as consumption of high PRBS foods increases, the chance of total pregnancy loss increases in lock-step.

Scientists found that replacing just one high pesticide residue fruit or vegetable with low PRBS produce each day improves the odds of clinical pregnancy by 79%, and the odds of live birth by 88%.

While the results are currently only associations and causality has not yet been proven, they are nonetheless dramatic. The outcomes of the study align with what is typically seen in rodent studies on birth outcomes, highlighting both the difficulty and crudeness of the current reliance on translating animal models to human exposure in the federal pesticide registration process. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), when accounting for interspecies differences in exposure levels between animal and human models, usually applies a simple 5X or 10X safety factor, which has the effect of decreasing allowed application rates by roughly a power of 10. Although many may suspect this translation process is more sophisticated, studies like these highlight that the current methodology for evaluating the toxicity of a pesticide is crude.

While inadequate testing of pesticides by EPA continues to lead to contaminated fruits and vegetables, there are still ways to make sure you’re not consuming toxic produce. Take a tiered approach based on your current lifestyle and resources. Try to buy only organic certified produce, which does not permit toxic pesticides to be applied to fruits and vegetables. If possible, grow your own! That way, you can be sure about what was applied to your food. If you simply can not make the economics work, you could consider focusing on replacing with organic the foods that you eat most and high pesticide residue produce, but keep in mind the true cost. Organic produce is slightly higher because it does not significantly harm health or the environment, while conventional production passes those costs along to the consumer through higher health care bills, or the need for taxpayer-funded environmental remediation projects.

The researchers of the study are rethinking their food choices. “I am now more willing to buy organic apples than I was a few months ago,” said Dr Chavarro to TIME. For more information on why organic is the right choice for you and your family, see Beyond Pesticides article, The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food.

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

Source: TIME, JAMA Internal Medicine

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2017) The explosion of genetic engineering (GE) in agriculture over the past three decades has led to significant increases in the amount of the weedkiller glyphosate being found in the human body, according to new research from University of California, San Diego. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, is the most widely used herbicide in the world, owing that title to its use in “Roundup Ready” GE cropping systems and residential yards. “Our exposure to these chemicals has increased significantly over the years but most people are unaware that they are consuming them through their diet,” said study coauthor and director of Family Medicine and Public Health at UC San Diego, Paul J Mills, PhD.

Scientists conducted their study based on participants in the Rancho Bernardo Study on Aging, a prospective study of over 6,000 adults over 50 years old living in Southern California. Of the 1,000 active participants, 100 had urinary glyphosate residues tested in between 1993 to 1996, and 2014 to 2016.

Glyphosate residues in these individuals increased significantly from the mid-1990s to today. Between 1993 and 1996 average glyphosate residues in urine was recorded to be 0.024 micrograms per liter. By time participants were tested between 2014-2016, average urinary glyphosate levels rose to 0.314 micrograms per liter, an increase of over 1,200%. In the 1990s, 12% of individuals tested contained glyphosate in their bodies above the level of detection. By now, 70% of individuals contain glyphosate levels above detection rates.

Levels of glyphosate’s primary metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), increased at similar rates to its parent compound. Researchers indicate that changes in farming practices are very likely the reason for the dramatic increases. Dr. Mills notes, “What we saw was that prior to the introduction of genetically modified foods, very few people had detectable levels of glyphosate.”

Since its initial registration in 1974, glyphosate use in agriculture has risen 300-fold, and 43-fold in nonagricultural uses, with 2014 recording 276 million lbs of glyphosate applied. Beginning in the mid-1990s, glyphosate was touted as a silver bullet in farming because, when coupled with corn, soy, or cotton seeds genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical, it can kill weeds without risk of failure to the main crop. However, this new form of agriculture, pushed and promoted by agrichemical companies like Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, BASF, and Syngenta, fails to take into account important secondary effects from its use. Increased levels of glyphosate on our food and in our bodies is only the beginning. Rampant herbicide use in GE agriculture has been linked to the decline of monarch butterflies, damage to soil health, and widespread weed resistance. Subsequent increases in weed resistance to glyphosate has led to the use of even more toxic and harmful chemicals in GE agriculture, such as 2,4-D and Dicamba.

Earlier this year, California declared glyphosate a carcinogen under Prop 65, following a determination from the World Health Organization that the chemical was carcinogenic based on laboratory studies.

“The public needs to be better informed of the potential risks of the numerous herbicides sprayed onto our food supply so that we can make educated decisions on when we need to reduce or eliminate exposure to potentially harmful compounds,” said Dr. Mills.

In 2013, Beyond Pesticides joined together with 22 other health and environmental groups to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reject increased levels of glyphosate in the food supply. The organization has met with the agency on the adequacy of current protocols for glyphosate testing in food, and continues to advocate measures that would reduce and eliminate consumer exposure to Roundup and other toxic pesticide products.

Consumers wishing to eliminate their exposure to glyphosate can switch to organic products. Not only will you eliminate the chance that you are eating carcinogenic glyphosate, you will also be voting with your food dollars for safer agriculture, and a healthier future. For more information on the connection between increased glyphosate in our bodies and GE agriculture, see our program page on herbicide-tolerant crops.

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

Source: UC San Diego News Center

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2017) Scientists warn that inadequate federal testing, disproportionate industry influence, and subverted regulatory oversight threaten decades of progress on protecting people from hormone disrupting chemicals. This from a new paper with findings that regulators face a critical need to fully understand and address the hazards from these dangerous substances.

Hormone disrupting chemicals, also known as endocrine disruptors, are substances that have been shown to interfere with the hormone system, leading to long-term health impacts ranging from cancer to neurological developmental impairments. Even small alterations in hormone concentrations, particularly during “critical windows” of embryonic development and developmental phases of life, can have lasting and significant effects. Mounting science is showing that disruptions to the hormone system can occur at very low doses that are lower than those used in traditional toxicity testing. Now, commentary from scientists at Rutgers University and North Carolina State University, “Endocrine disrupting chemicals and behavior: Re-evaluating the science at a critical turning point,” states that inefficient federal testing and outsized industry influence in Washington threaten decades of progress.

“The significant progress made over the past couple of decades to understand endocrine disrupting chemical-related effects and mitigate exposures is now at serious risk,” write the authors in the upcoming Hormones and Behavior journal.

The scientists write that there remains a significant need to understand how exposures to endocrine disruptors may be contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders, especially behavioral disorders. They warn that deregulation and chemical proliferation could halt years of progress on understanding the insidious ways some everyday products alter human hormones and hurt our health.

According to the paper, “Under the Trump administration the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is facing elimination. Of additional concern, [Toxic Substances Control Act] TSCA policy is being orchestrated and implemented by individuals with close ties to the chemical industry including the former Senior Director of Regulatory Science Policy in the Division of Regulatory & Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council, the main trade association for the chemical industry. With efforts to develop systematic  EDC [endocrine disrupting chemical] screening now under serious threat, it is imperative that a diverse body of researchers continue to advance the science, but also amplify outreach and engagement efforts to educate the public about this significant health issue.”

While estimates vary, there are about 800 chemicals currently produced that are known or suspected endocrine disruptors. EPA has found that of 10,000 chemicals, including pesticides and those found in drinking water, only 174 have been screened and tested for endocrine disruption so far. Some of the more notorious endocrine disruptors, including Bisphenol A (BPA), Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), have been phased out, but are being replaced by substitutes, some of which appear to have very similar endocrine disrupting properties and thus pose similar health risks.

Now the Trump Administration is seeking to reduce EPA’s budget by about 31 percent next year. This year, the EPA budget was cut by $81 million, with many staff leaving the agency, reducing oversight and research on these chemicals. With industry representatives being appointed to top posts in the agency, like former senior policy director with the American Chemistry Council, Nancy Beck, Ph.D., as deputy assistant administrator in EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and Michael Dourson, Ph.D, an industry consultant, as head of the Office, progress is certain to stall and the science undermined.

Earlier this year, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) recommended to EPA a strategy to evaluate the evidence of adverse human health effects from low doses of exposure to endocrine disruptors. NAS believes that EPA’s current process, which utilizes traditional toxicity testing, misses some effects that occur at doses lower then those evaluated by EPA. EPA’s Endocrine Disruption Screening Program (EDSP) is currently screening chemicals for their potential to interact with the endocrine system, but the program is years behind schedule and has been criticized for using outdated methods. In fact, EPA’s methodologies have been criticized over the years for failing to adequately capture impacts at low doses. NAS proposed a strategy that involves systematic reviews, which can be an important component in investigating evidence on low-dose adverse effects, and NAS notes EPA can build on existing systematic reviews that are published in peer reviewed literature, and recommends performing meta-analyses of the animal and human evidence when appropriate. This allows data from several studies to be combined and used to evaluate confidence in the body of evidence, and to characterize the relationship between exposure and effect.

Endocrine disruptors can be found in common household products such as detergents, disinfectants, furniture, plastics, and pesticides, and interfere with the body’s hormone system either by mimicking naturally produced hormones, blocking hormone receptors in cells, or effecting the transport, synthesis, metabolism or excretion of hormones. These impacts can result in devastating effects on one’s health, including behavioral and learning disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), birth defects, obesity, early puberty, infertility, cardiovascular disease, and childhood and adult cancers. In 2013, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals a global health threat. A 2016 report concluded that exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually in  health care costs and lost wages.

For more information on the effects of pesticides on human health, including endocrine disruption, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: Environmental Health News

(Beyond Pesticides, October 30, 2017) Tell the Arkansas State Plant Board to stand up to Monsanto, and protect farmers by banning dicamba’s use in Arkansas agriculture.

Comment period closes today, Monday, October 30, 2017, at 4:30pm (Eastern Time). Your comments are needed to stop the disaster in Arkansas being created by Monsanto’s new genetically engineered (GE) cropping system, which relies on the toxic pesticide dicamba.

If Arkansas bans dicamba, other states should and will follow —given the chemical industry’s takeover of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is allowing this extremely hazardous pesticide use.

This is a problem that has regional and national implications, given the breakdown of the EPA and its pesticide program. We cannot let this failure of protection stand in Arkansas or anywhere in the country.

Promoted by Monsanto as a way to address rampant Roundup (glyphosate) resistance, Monsanto’s new GE soybeans are now able to withstand both glyphosate and dicamba, an older herbicide with a range of documented health effects —from neurotoxicity to reproductive problems.

Dicamba is also highly volatile and, as a result, has drifted across crop fields throughout the region, damaging high value fruit tree and organic operations.

The Arkansas State Plant Board is currently considering whether to ban dicamba. Tell them by Monday at 4:30pm (Eastern time) that banning dicamba is the right decision for the future of agriculture, and farmer and public safety! 

Dicamba drift and damage is pitting farmer against farmer, neighbor against neighbor. Last year, a farmer in Arkansas was shot in a dispute that involved dicamba drift and resulting crop damage. And the University of Arkansas’ agricultural research station saw over 100 acres of soybeans ruined as a result of nearby dicamba use.

Dicamba’s use in GE agriculture perpetuates a toxic, pesticide-dependent system that poisons farmers, farmworkers, and nearby communities, while eliminating habitat for pollinators, contaminating water, and encouraging weed resistance. Because of the success and growth of organic agriculture, there are better ways to grow food without causing crop damage, or putting human health and the environment in harm’s way.

Act now to ban Dicamba is Arkansas. Anyone in any state can provide a public comment – speak up to protect your food from Dicamba contamination!

And please follow up with a phone call to 501-225-1598!

For more information on this issue and Dicamba’s hazards see:
New EPA Restrictions of Herbicide Dicamba, Prone to Drift, Criticized as Not Stopping Major Crop Damage
Crops Damaged by Drift Widespread from Herbicide Dicamba Applied to GE Plants
EPA Registers Dicamba for GE Crops, Adding to Growing Herbicide Resistance Issue
Effects of the herbicide dicamba on nontarget plants and pollinator visitation

(Beyond Pesticides, October 27, 2017) In a study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, scientists at University of Massachusetts, Amherst identify a novel approach to reduce toxic pesticide residues on conventional food. The method the authors describe is cumbersome and unlikely to be widely used by consumers. At the same time, study results confirm that eating organic products is the best way for individuals and families to eliminate pesticide residues from their diet.

For the current study, researchers looked at how much of two common pesticides, one, the fungicide thiobendazole, and the other, the insecticide phosmet, remained on apples after submersion for 24 hours. Both pesticides penetrated the skin of the apples, though thiobendazole, a systemic fungicide, made its way deeper into and past the apple’s skin. Thiabendazole penetrated 80 micrometers into the apple while phosmet penetrated 20 micrometers.

Researchers looked at three different methods to reduce the pesticides on apples: tap water, a bleach solution, and baking soda. Compared to the others, baking soda was found to be by far the most effective method to reduce pesticide residue, with 80% of thiabendazole and 95% of phosmet removed. “If factory washing [with bleach] is already effective, then we don’t need to care about washing at home, right? But it turns out that factory-level washing is not effective,” said Lili He, PhD, co-author of the study and food scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst to TIME. “At home, the simplest way to wash is with tap water, but we also found that just tap water is not that effective. To reduce further pesticide exposure, we suggest adding a little baking soda.” However, in order to see these results, apples had to be washed in the solution for 12 to 15 minutes; not a common practice for those looking to grab a quick bite.

It is also important to note that in this experiment synthetic pesticides were applied to clean organic apples, and pesticide exposure on conventional apples is likely to have occurred long before they reach the supermarket. Thus, penetration may be much deeper on conventional produce bought at the supermarket compared to those tested for this experiment.

Studies show that despite assurances that levels are below those which cause harm, classical toxicology testing required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for pesticide registration does not adequately capture risk because of data gaps on mixtures, synergistic effects, and certain health endpoints, such as endocrine disruption. Endocrine disruption effects, whereby hormonal (testosterone or estrogen) mimics cause effects at minute doses during critical developmental phases of life, upend the oft-repeated and outdated idea that “dose makes the poison.” Seminal work on endocrine disruption, published in Endocrine Reviews, is available in the open source literature for analysis.

Beyond the deficiencies of the pesticide review process is the fact that not all pesticides will penetrate or wash off food commodities in the same way as those in the study. For a deeper review of how systemic pesticides work their way into the food and environment, see Beyond Pesticides report in Pesticides and You, Cultivating Plants that Poison. Agricultural adjuvants, contained in most conventional pesticide formulations, are also likely to increase pesticide residues on food since many formulations are formulated to help pesticides adhere to plants and fruits.

As far back as 2006, studies have found that switching from a conventional to an organic diet is the most effective method of reducing pesticide exposure in one’s body. An early 2015 study found that, looking at nearly 4,500 people from across the country, those that reported eating organic fruits and vegetables, at least occasionally, has significantly less pesticide residue in their bodies than those who never ate organic. A study published in late 2015 tracked 40 children, moving them from a conventional to an organic diet, and tracking levels of pesticide metabolites in their urine. Overall, among the most frequently detected pesticides, metabolites of organophosphate insecticides decreased by nearly 50 percent when children were put on an organic diet, and levels of 2,4-D fell by 25 percent.

While some may seek to reduce pesticide residues, it is not clear that the reduction reduces risk when their is exposure to carcinogens, neurotoxicants, and endocrine disruptors. Since cost is always an issue, see our factsheet on eating organically affordably. See also, our article The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food. Beyond Pesticides strongly encourages consumers to vote with their food dollars and support organic systems that do not require risky amounts of toxic, synthetic pesticides in order to grow food. See our Organic program page for more information.

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

Source: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, TIME

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2017) In mid-October, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced another action in his effort to remake the agency by issuing a directive that aims to stop the practice — often referred to as “sue and settle” — of settling lawsuits with outside (often, environmental) groups. It’s the Administrator’s contention that such groups have had undue influence on regulation. He has indicated that his action will not prevent EPA from reaching settlements with “outside litigants,” but that he does want to disallow agreements that would change a discretionary duty to a nondiscretionary duty. However, responding to Administrator Pruitt’s comment about the days of “regulation through litigation” being over, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) notes, “That’s really just a twisted way of saying that the days of holding the EPA accountable are over. The effect won’t just be the EPA wasting taxpayer money as it fights unwinnable lawsuits, but also prolonging delays that allow polluters to keep on polluting.”

The agency’s press release quotes Mr. Pruitt: “‘The days of regulation through litigation are over. . . . We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle.’”

The release adds, “‘Sue and settle’ cases establish Agency obligations without participation by states and/or the regulated community; foreclose meaningful public participation in rulemaking; effectively force the Agency to reach certain regulatory outcomes; and, cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars. . . With today’s directive, Administrator Pruitt is ensuring the Agency increase[s] transparency, improve[s] public engagement, and provide[s] accountability to the American public when considering a settlement agreement or consent decree.” Read the full directive here: https://www.epa.gov/newsroom/directive-promoting-transparency-and-public-participation-consent-decrees-and-settlement.

The directive says it wants to make EPA more transparent by providing more disclosure related to potential settlements: publishing any notice of intent to sue within 15 days of receipt of such notice, notifying states (or other entities) that might be affected, and publishing possible settlements or consent decrees for public comment for 30 days. It also intends to forbid the practice of agreeing to settlements that “exceed the authority of courts,” and to exclude plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and litigation costs in settling suits.

This practice of bringing pressure on the EPA (or other agencies) via lawsuit has been an important tool for the public in ensuring accountability of federal agencies, i.e., making sure the feds follow their own rules. During the last decade or so, when EPA (or other agencies) delayed rulemaking, citizens — typically through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) — would sometimes use litigation to get the agencies to act, and EPA often arrived at settlements or consent decrees to resolve the matters. When, for example, EPA misses a deadline that results in polluters violating regulations that protect public health and the environment, the public has been able to take the agency to court for remedy. According to Reuters coverage of the issue, “Most lawsuits by green groups . . . seek to push the agency to speed up regulation on issues such as climate and air and water pollution.”

This directive is the latest example of how Administrator Pruitt is acting to change the very federal policies he challenged in court as Oklahoma Attorney General. In that role, he sued EPA more than a dozen times and has long criticized the practice of “sue and settle.” Beyond that, this move appears to be part of a larger pattern in the Trump administration to rein in the disbursement of federal funds to external entities in litigation. In June 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo to block payments to third-party, not-for-profit groups as part of environmental settlements. The Washington Post reported his comment: “‘Instead of allowing defendants to fund environmental measures as a way of meeting their obligations for violating the law, such penalties should go directly to the U.S. Treasury,’ Sessions said. ‘The attorney general is “keenly interested and supportive of what we’re doing,’” adding that ‘other agencies are taking notice as well.’”

Ending the practice of “sue and settle” has long been high on the to-do lists of business groups and conservatives. As Reuters reports, “Daren Bakst, a research fellow in agricultural policy at the [conservative] Heritage Foundation think tank, said sue and settle has led to ‘egregious antics’ that have ‘effectively handed over the setting of agency priorities to environmental pressure groups,’ and has led to rushed rulemaking by the agency.”

Environmental groups quickly weighed in on the issuance of the directive. Pat Gallagher, legal director for the Sierra Club, says, “There’s a general hostility to citizen enforcement of environmental laws, and [the directive] reflects the fact that Pruitt doesn’t want these laws enforced.”

Ecowatch says that the directive “will likely result in prolonged violations, delayed protection, and waste of government resources fighting lawsuits against which the EPA has no defense.”

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor at the Vermont Law School, said that “Pruitt’s directive would be ‘counterproductive’ and costly because in the end courts could fine the agency if it does not meet compliance dates for issuing regulations. ‘He can fight it if he wants as long as he wants, and spend as much money as he wants,’ Mr. Parenteau said. ‘But in the end if you’ve missed a statutory deadline, you are going to be ordered (by a court) to comply and then you are going to be ordered to pay fees.’”

Government watchdog groups suggest that the directive may not have much impact, given that many environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act, provide “broad latitude to sue the EPA when it is failing to meet statutory deadlines, and the judge handling such cases typically determines the amount of legal fees the government must pay as part of any consent decree. ‘That’s not his decision to make,’ said John Walke, director of the NRDC’s Clean Air Project. . . A judge can impose attorney fees when an agency violates the law and citizens file suit to hold the government accountable.’”

Groups have also noted that a 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the EPA practice of settling with outside groups found that the Impact of such litigation on EPA’s rulemaking process is limited; similarly, a February 2017 GAO report on endangered species–related litigation found that “the settlement agreements did not affect the substantive basis or procedural rule-making requirements the Services were to follow in completing the actions.”

Mr. Walke said,“‘Pruitt’s doing nothing more than posturing about a nonexistent problem and political fiction. His targeting of legal settlements, especially where EPA has no defense to breaking the law, will just allow violations to persist, along with harms to Americans. . . . The irony is that polluters don’t even have to sue Pruitt to get what they want. They just pick up the phone and ask. Make no mistake, the unspoken Trump EPA agenda is to allow more corporations to ignore the law and prolong EPA breaking the law; both will lead to dirtier air, dirtier water, and sicker people.’”

Sources: Reuters, and NRDC.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2017) Oregon is the most recent site of an effort by a locality to establish more-protective pesticide regulations than are provided by the state. Voters in Lincoln County, on the north-central Oregon Coast, approved a ballot measure earlier this year that established a ban on aerial spraying of pesticides in the county. Immediately, county landowners Rex Capri and Wakefield Farms, LLC, both of whom use aerial spraying on their properties, filed a legal challenge to the ordinance created through that vote. The issue is whether the state of Oregon has the legal authority to stop its local political subdivisions from adopting more rigorous than those enacted by the state.

When the state of Maine considered legislation to preempt its local jurisdictions (take away their authority to act) this summer, Beyond Pesticides wrote, “The democratic process is foundational to the culture of Maine and the country. LD 1505 betrays the democratic process. Maine communities want to be able to adopt standards that exceed or are more stringent than state standards as a matter of public health and environmental protection, or quality of life. Why would a town or city want to do use its local authority to adopt a pesticide restriction? It is the simple exercise of the local democratic process that, while meeting state and federal standards, decides that it wants to do more to protect the health of families, children, local waterways, pollinators, and those with pre-existing medical conditions that are exacerbated by pesticide exposure.”

The Oregon case began its hearing in early October before Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge Sheryl Bachart, who says she expects to issue a written ruling soon. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Gregory Chaimov, argues that the county lacks the authority to create such an ordinance, that local statute cannot override state law, and that the ban is barred by state regulations governing use of “pesticides, forestry practices, and the ‘right to farm.’”

Lincoln County Community Rights (LCCR), a nonprofit that intervened as a defendant in the case, counters that people, in this case in the form of the county, have the inherent right to community self-governance, and should be able to protect themselves and their community from “toxic trespass” from aerial pesticide applications. The group says that the state legislature does not have the authority to establish a “ceiling” that would proscribe more-protective local regulations on health and safety than the state sets out. On those grounds, LCCR also argues that any Oregon law that would prevent local governments from regulating pesticides use is unconstitutional. In a local newspaper, LCCR stated, “The [plaintiffs’] preemption complaint boils down to asserting there is a greater legal authority for Capri, Wakefield Farms, and others to aerial spray than for the people of Lincoln County to ban aerial spraying on the grounds of protecting the right not to be toxically trespassed, the right to clean water free from aerial sprayed pesticides, and the rights of the ecosystems not to be exposed to aerial sprayed pesticides.”

Ann Kneeland, LCCR attorney, maintains that the Oregon Constitution places all authority in the people, “‘who may reform or abolish the government. . . . The county’s power to self-govern derives directly from the Oregon Constitution, therefore it supersedes state laws that limit the authority of local governments. These concepts may seem radical or revolutionary to us now but these are concepts in our Constitution.’”

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

There are several types of preemption that states employ: (1) express preemption, or the prohibition of local governments from regulating in a specific area; (2) implied preemption, wherein “state laws give the impression that the intent of the state was to occupy the field and exclude local ordinances”; and (3) preemption by conflict, which happens when a local ordinance either prohibits or allows an activity permitted or prohibited, respectively, by state statute. Another definitional note: there are “ceiling preemptions” and “floor preemptions,” the former being federal or state laws that establish a maximum level of protection for people’s safety, health, well-being, and rights, and the latter establishing a minimum level of protection, above which local regulations can create greater protections.

As communities become more aware of and concerned about unsafe, harmful, or objectionable actions in their localities, people’s interest in local control and authority has grown considerably. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), which advocates for greater local authority over what affects the welfare of communities, has grown alongside this awareness and interest. As noted in the Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet on preemption, “As pesticide pollution and concerns over the effects of GE foods on human and environmental health mount, many are fighting to overturn preemption laws and return the power back to localities, enabling them to adopt more stringent protective standards throughout their communities.”

The notion that communities should be able to protect themselves may seem obvious on the surface, but doing so in the face of inevitable challenges is a legal minefield that involves state constitutions, legal “authority,” precedent, and corporate influence. CELDF approaches these issues from a stance of establishing both the rights, and the legal authority, to protect. The group says, “We assist communities to develop first-in-the-nation, groundbreaking laws to protect rights — including worker, environmental, and democratic rights, and rights of nature. . . . [We do so] because the existing structure of law ensures that people cannot govern their own communities and act as stewards of the environment, while [it protects] corporate ‘rights’ and interests over those of communities and nature.”

The tension between states’ preemptive authority, and the emerging insistence on greater local control to protect its residents, goes to the very heart of not only how governments at state and local levels derive their authority in a democratic system, but also, how that authority is shared — or not. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) clearly establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. At the state level, things can become a bit less clear. Each state has its own Constitution, of course, its own interpretive history of the document, and its own assignations of authority regarding the host of issues with which governments concern themselves.

In the collage of various state approaches to pesticide regulation, Beyond Pesticides notes that 43 states currently exercise some form of preemption vis a vis local statutes; 14 have no explicit preemption language, but assign the authority for pesticide regulation to an agriculture department, commissioner, or pesticide board; and only seven states have no preemption laws. It is noteworthy that 29 states that set out preemptive provisions use virtually the same language in their statutes. This is evidence of industry influence on legislatures, wherein lobbyists create “model legislation” that corporations want adopted, lobbyists meet with legislators with template laws in hand, and legislators — some of whose bread is considerably buttered by industries — then push for adoption of the legislation.

This is precisely the method for which ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council — a consortium of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives (aka corporate lobbyists) — has become infamous. Ms. Kneeland said that state lawmakers try to limit localities’ constitutional ability to create stronger protections “‘at the behest of well-funded corporate interests. . . . We find ourselves in a legal system where corporations consistently have greater rights than the people.’”

A 2017 National League of Cities report, City Rights in an Era of Preemption: A State-by-State Analysis, points out that. “State legislatures have gotten more aggressive in their use of preemption in recent years. Explanations for this increase include lobbying efforts by special interests, spatial sorting of political preferences between urban and rural areas, and single party dominance in most state governments. . . . This loss of local control means that cities cannot curtail laws to fit their needs.”

A bit of history on preemption in the realm of pesticide regulation: In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, that the federal law known as FIFRA — the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act — does not preempt local jurisdictions from creating more-stringent pesticide regulation. Thus, it was ruled that FIFRA nowhere expressly supersedes local regulation. However, and critically, the court left intact the ability of states to preempt such regulations.

The pesticide industry has been very active in seeking federal legislation that preempts the ability of states to adopt more stringent standards, and has tried repeatedly to preempt the rights of states to adopt more-stringent regulations under FIFRA. After the SCOTUS Mortier decision, the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy (comprising pesticide industry lobbyists) formed and drafted model legislation that would restrict municipalities from creating ordinances that would regulate use of pesticides on private property, and advocated for it methodically — and successfully — in many states.

In the face of this preemption hurdle, there have been numerous efforts on the parts of municipalities to enact stronger-than-the-state’s protections from pesticides (including herbicides and fungicides). Early on, in 1979, Mendocino, California tried to prevent aerial application of phenoxy herbicides through local statute; a California Supreme Court upheld it in 1984, and then the legislature passed a law to preempt the action.

In 2013, Kaui County, Hawaii attempted to regulate GMOs and pesticide application by requiring notification before pesticide use and mandating buffer zones. Paul Goeringer writes in his Maryland Risk Management Education blog, “Because state pesticide law enables the state Department of Agriculture to establish regulations regarding pesticides, the court found that the Kuai County effort to regulate ‘touched upon’ the same subject matter as Hawaii’s pesticide law, and therefore, should be preempted; when the county argued that, essentially, there were matters unaddressed by the state law, the court found that the ‘depth’ of the state statute demonstrated that it was comprehensive and thus, functionally ‘impenetrable’ to local control.”

In 2015, Montgomery County, Maryland established an ordinance which could require posted notice of some lawn applications of pesticides, prohibit certain pesticides on lawns and county-owned property, and require the county to adopt integrated pest management (IPM) on certain county-owned properties. This past August, a Montgomery County Circuit Court struck down components of the ordinance, eliminating pesticide use restrictions on private property, but left intact provisions limiting toxic pesticides used on public, county-owned land.

Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman said of the Maryland case, “The court should have recognized that, in restricting lawn pesticides throughout its jurisdiction, Montgomery County is exercising a local democratic principle under Maryland and federal law to ensure the safety of the community, including children, pets, and the environment, from a known hazard not adequately regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the state. . . . After extensive hearings and study, the county council understands that toxic chemicals are dangerous and not needed to have beautiful lawns and landscapes. Just like big tobacco’s attacks on local smoking restrictions to control secondhand smoke, the chemical industry is attempting to head off a growing movement asking for common-sense measures that protect public health from pesticide exposure.” Montgomery County is appealing the Circuit Court ruling.

In its State Preemption Law factsheet, Beyond Pesticides has further noted that, “Numerous studies by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and scientific studies indicate that federal and state governments alone are not adequately protective of health and the environment. There is no evidence that the prospect of local democratic decision making is a threat to agriculture or other business interest[s] in local communities. In fact, those closely aligned with these interests are well represented in local decision making bodies. Finally, local legislators know that restricting pesticides is no different from other environmental and neighborhood stewardship laws, including restrictions on littering, recycling, noise, picking up after pets, and smoking. These local laws all act on values associated with living in a community where contaminant-free air, water, and land are shared resources.”

Beyond Pesticides has long maintained the importance of the rights of local governments to protect public health and the environment — particularly when federal and state government are not adequately protective. State preemption often denies people their democratic right to better protection when a community decides that minimum standards set by state and federal law are insufficient. Localities across the country continue the work to pass statutes that would better protect residents and resources. A snapshot of the status of local policies on pesticide use is provided by the Beyond Pesticides and Organic Consumers Association in the map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies.

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

Source: http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20171009/oregon-countys-aerial-spray-ban-gets-day-in-court

(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2017) Over 75% of insect abundance has declined over the last 27 years, according to new research published by European scientists in PLOS One. The dramatic drop in insect biomass has led to equally dramatic pronunciations from highly respected scientists and entomologists. “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life, and are currently on course for ecological Armageddon,” study coauthor David Goulson, Ph.D. of Sussex University, UK, told The Guardian. “If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.” Looking at the range of mechanisms that could be driving this slow moving catastrophe, researchers could suss out only one plausible large-scale factor: agricultural intensification.

The current study, which looked at 63 nature preserves located in Germany, follows a similar study released in 2013 that was conducted in a singular German nature preserve. That study, originally published only in German, but available translated by Boulder County Beekeepers, found that 75% of insect biomass declined in the Orbroich Bruch Nature Reserve in Krefeld, Germany from 1989 to 2013. That study was limited to a singular nature preserve, and while scientists who worked on the study described their results as “frightening,” because of the small sample size, it was easy for other researchers to brush off the results as an anomaly, or one-off event.

This new study is not so easy to ignore. Researchers used Malaise traps, large, tent-like nets that can trap a range of flying insects. All traps were situated in protected areas, and samples were taken at different sites throughout the course of the study. Most sites were sampled once, though some were sampled two or more times.  During the sampling process, traps were emptied once every 11 days on average from spring to early fall, and catches were stored in solution and weighed to determine insect biomass. Researchers also recorded data on weather, land use, and habitat type.

Researchers found that insect biomass declined significantly in mid-summer, compared to samples in early spring or fall. Despite average temperature increases due to climate change, which scientists indicated would likely increase insect biomass, declines persisted. And despite substantial variation in the abundance of insects trapped between different habitats, with, for example, nutrient-rich grasslands having higher trapped insect biomass than nutrient poor dunes or shrubland, rates of decline were similar across all habitat types.

Given this information, authors indicated that climate change and landscape factors were unlikely to explain the dramatic declines, as they would have expected to see stronger relationships. Only one factor was identified as plausible: agricultural intensification. Scientists note that, typical of fragmented landscapes across Europe, 94% of preserve sites tested were enclosed by agricultural fields. In the authors’ words, “Part of the explanation could therefore be that the protected areas (serving as insect sources) are affected and drained by the agricultural fields in the broader surroundings (serving as sinks or even as ecological traps).”

Massive declines in insect populations is an issue that will affect all life on the planet, from reptiles and birds, to mammals and humans. “As entire ecosystems are dependent on insects for food and as pollinators, it places the decline of insect eating birds and mammals in a new context,” said lead author of the study Hans de Kroon, PhD, of Radboud University.

An international team of scientists, The Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, has identified neonicotinoids and other systemic poisons as culpable not only for declines in insect pollinators, but global biodiversity writ large. In the U.S., increases in herbicide use have been attributed to declines in Monarch butterfly populations.

This trend can be reversed, researchers indicate, by taking simple steps. “We need to do less of the things that we know have a negative impact, such as the use of pesticides and the disappearance of farmland borders full of flowers,”  Dr. de Kroon told The Guardian.  While these changes are simple in practice, they are complicated only because of political cowardice to fully account for the dangers of chemical intensive agriculture. If the negative effects of conventional farming on ecosystem services and biodiversity were fully considered in the price of food, the true cost of the world’s prevailing approach to agriculture would come into sharp focus.

In the meantime, consumers can make the decision to support regenerative, ecologically based farming practices by supporting organic agriculture. Read here why organic is the right place to put your food dollars. And for more information on pesticides and their effect on biodiversity, view our Bee Protective and Wildlife program pages.

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

Source: Phys.org, The Guardian, PLOS One

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2017) Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, with a number of unique ecosystems, and among the most important estuaries in the U.S, are once more in danger of being sprayed with the toxic neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid. A draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) produced by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) considers two options for spraying imidacloprid and one no-action alternative. Imidacloprid would be sprayed to kill the native burrowing shrimp in beds of commercial Japanese oysters.

Tell Ecology to restore the bays instead of spraying them!

Ecology’ssummary highlights:
⦁    Immediate adverse, unavoidable impacts to juvenile worms, crustaceans, and shellfish in the areas treated with imidacloprid and the nearby areas covered by incoming tides.
⦁    Limited impacts bay-wide, but significant uncertainty about the cumulative impacts and other unknown impacts, including those to other marine invertebrates and lifecycles.
⦁    Little direct risk to fish, birds, marine mammals, and human health.
⦁    Potential indirect impacts to fish and birds if food sources are disrupted.
⦁    Continued knowledge gaps about imidacloprid. Further research is needed.

The SEIS fails to give adequate weight to the “knowledge gaps” it identifies, in some cases indicating that monitoring during use of imidacloprid could be used to reduce uncertainty. In order to protect the bays, facts need to be established before permitting the use of another toxic chemical in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.

Among the knowledge gaps found by Ecology are uncertainties over whether imidacloprid is effective for its stated purpose. These uncertainties are crucial, since no spraying can be justified if it is not effective.

Tell Ecology to restore the bays instead of spraying them!

The SEIS finds a number of uncertainties concerning the direct effects of spraying imidacloprid, including accumulation in sediments, long-term toxic impacts, impacts on zooplankton, sub-lethal effects, impacts on vegetation, impacts of degradation products, and the area that would be affected.

The SEIS does not evaluate synergistic impacts of imidacloprid combined with other chemicals (“inert” ingredients, other chemicals used in the bays, and other pollutants) or other stressors. Among the organisms known to be at risk is the commercially important Dungeness crab, which has been shown to be susceptible to the effects of imidacloprid, and whose populations experience large natural fluctuations, putting them at risk of extinction.

Given the systemic mode of action of imidacloprid in crop plants, the failure to account for impacts on non-target animals consuming vegetation in treated areas is not acceptable.

Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor have been affected by human activity over the past century that has contributed to problems experience by all who use the bays. Of the three alternatives presented, the “No Action” option is the best. However, what is truly necessary to address these problems is an alternative that was not considered in the SEIS –a plan to restore the habitat by removing stressors from streams flowing into the bays.

Tell Ecology to restore the bays instead of spraying them!

(Beyond Pesticides, October 20, 2017) Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that label changes to the herbicide dicamba would be made to try to minimize drift that has left thousands of acres of crops already damaged this season. The label changes include making dicamba “restricted use,” which allows only certified applicators to apply the chemical. Dicamba drift has been damaging farmers’ crops for at least two years due to the approval of new dicamba-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) crops. Advocates says that the new changes do not ensure that drift will be eliminated.

According to EPA, the agency reached an agreement with the makers of dicamba, (Monsanto, BASF and DuPont) to restrict its application. This comes after hundreds of official complaints of crop damage related to dicamba across 17 states this year alone, leading to questions about the new formulation of the chemical used in genetically engineered (GE) crop productioon. New GE crops developed by Monsanto must be paired with specific formulations of dicamba, and thus led to a vast increase in dicamba use over the past couple growing seasons. Dicamba-based herbicide use has climbed dramatically as farmers have adopted, especially, Monsanto’s GE soybean seeds; in the 2017 season, 20 million acres of them were planted with the seed.

Farmers who do not use GE seed have seen dire impacts on their crops in the last two seasons, including stunted growth, and wrinkled, cup-shaped leaves. This happens in large part because the herbicide can easily volatilize after being applied and drift via the wind onto neighboring fields. In 2017, more than 3 million acres of soybeans and other crops suffered damage from the chemical.

Beyond the crop damage, pesticides are widely used without, in many cases, rigorous vetting for safety, health, and environmental impacts when used in combination with other pesticides. For example, Monsanto rolled out another iteration of its GE soybean seed in 2015, which is tolerant of both glyphosate and dicamba. Some farmers now use those seeds and “stack” applications of glyphosate on top of early treatment with dicamba, without adequate evaluation of synergistic impacts of the use of both compounds. This also increases the overall amount of pesticides used, and presents an opportunity for organisms that may develop resistance to both compounds — advancing the entropic trajectory of pesticide use. Further, potential synergistic effects of the combination use of these herbicides on non-target species (including critical pollinators) is not typically evaluated by EPA. However, a study has shown that the combination caused damage to the DNA of a toad species.

Until now, many believed the dicamba drift incidents were the result of illegal formulations of the herbicide being applied to fields. But, the extent of damage now being observed contradicts this theory, raising more questions as to whether the new dicamba formulation is actually the cause of the widespread drift damage.

Those who planted these GE soybeans in 2017 must use one of the newer, “low-volatility” versions of the herbicide and follow application directions, but the 2017 season shows that these newer formulations have not solved the drift problem. University and agricultural extension experts report extreme damage in hundreds of fields in their territories, and say that these new formulations remain sufficiently volatile to cause such damage. Non-GE growers have become increasingly angry and vocal about the effects of the chemical, from nearby sprayed fields, on their own crops.

Impacts have been the most extreme in Missouri, Arkansas, Illinois, Mississippi, and Tennessee, where state agencies have fielded thousands of complaints. A map of dicamba-injured soybean acreage shows the most-affected states; several have either instituted bans or tightened restrictions on the use of dicamba. EPA is more than aware of these issues. It held at least three conference calls this past summer with experts and state regulators on potential steps to prevent such damage in coming years. According to North Dakota State University’s Andrew Thostenson, who was on one of those calls, EPA officials said clearly that such damage is unacceptable, and that there would need to be significant changes to the rules on usage of dicamba if it were to be permitted in 2018 (or beyond). The recent announcement on voluntary labeling and protocols is the EPA response. Previously, Missouri and Arkansas have taken limited action against dicamba use.

Now Monsanto and others, after proposing the label changes themselves, are voluntarily agreeing to make the changes for all “over-the-top” (application to growing plants) dicamba products to be used next year. These include:

• Classifying products as “restricted use,” permitting only certified applicators with special training, and those under their supervision, to apply them; dicamba-specific training for all certified applicators to reinforce proper use;
• Requiring farmers to maintain specific records regarding the use of these products to improve compliance with label restrictions;
• Limiting applications to when maximum wind speeds are below 10 mph (from 15 mph) to reduce potential spray drift;
• Reducing the times during the day when applications can occur;
• Including tank clean-out language to prevent cross contamination; and
• Enhancing susceptible crop language and record keeping with sensitive crop registries to increase awareness of risk to especially sensitive crops nearby.

EPA states it will monitor the success of the label changes “to help inform our decision whether to allow the continued “over the top” use of dicamba beyond the 2018 growing season.” However, the fundamental root of the problem continues to go ignored. Restricting dicamba application to only ‘certified applicators’ and other modest changes to applications will not eliminate drift. Continued dicamba use inevitably leads to dicamba drift and environmental damage.

Meanwhile, the chemical companies blame the crop damage on farmers’ misuse, claiming they do not follow directions on application labels, use contaminated equipment, or buy older formulations of dicamba that are cheaper but more prone to drift. Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, insists that drift is not the problem — that “if the label is followed, the product will not move far, including through volatilization.” Of the EPA’s “restricted use” announcement, he said, “We’re very excited about it. It directly address what we found to be the causes of the off-target movement in 2017, and we think it sets the stage for all growers and applicators to have a positive experience in 2018.”

Larry Steckel, PhD, a row crop weed specialist and plant science professor at the University of Tennessee, and Mark Loux, PhD, a professor of horticulture and crop science at the Ohio State University, both suspect that the products’ volatility is the issue. “When you get three or four farmers spraying thousands of acres and it moves and shows the wide-ranging damages we’ve seen, that suggests volatility,” says Dr. Steckel (and Dr. Loux agrees), saying, “It is volatilizing for sure.”

It is no coincidence that with the deregulation of GE dicamba-tolerant varieties by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Plant Protection Act increased dicamba use, and now increased incidences of drift and damage to other non-tolerant crops. Dicamba has stirred up fights between neighbors in a number of agricultural communities. Bader Farms, which grows over 110,00 peach trees on over 1,000 acres in Missouri, is suing Monsanto after its insurance company issued a refusal to pay for damages caused by off-label dicamba drift from surrounding farms. In June of this year, University of Arkansas’ agricultural research station had over 100 acres of soybeans ruined from nearby dicamba use.  Monsanto has defended its new dicamba product, Xtendimax with VaporGrip Technology, resorting to blaming growers for using older versions of dicamba or not following directions on the new product label.

The rise of GE crops has led not only to the proliferation of hard to control, resistant weeds but also increased pesticide use. Pesticides, like dicamba, are highly volatile and drift for miles affecting vegetable and fruit crops that are not tolerant to dicamba. There are reports that the latest dicamba formulation that is used on GE dicamba-tolerant crops (Xtend, Eugenia) is responsible for some cases of drift, and preliminary tests have found that the new formulation does volatilize enough to drift. Until this reliance on hazardous chemicals for food production, especially a reliance exploited by the failures in GE crop technology, is addressed by EPA, more occurrences of increased pesticide use, drift and subsequent environmental and human damage is expected.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach that prohibits hazardous chemical use and requires alternative assessments to identify less toxic practices and products under the unreasonable adverse effects clause of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). An approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, like acceptable levels of pesticide drift, is needed that instead focuses on safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most GE organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving.

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

Source: EPA News Release, Washington Post, The Hannibal Courier-Post (Missouri)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 19, 2017) Exposure to the second most commonly used herbicide in the U.S., atrazine, results in a lower proportion of male frogs in populations of Blanchard’s cricket frogs, according to researchers from Ohio’s Miami University. While it may be ostensibly easy to dismiss the results of this study as limited to a single frog species, the Blanchard cricket frog, with its populations concentrated in heavily farmed Midwestern states, is likely an important indicator of broader ecological impacts. Ultimately, only a transition away from toxic herbicides and towards integrated organic systems will successfully address the ongoing effects of industrial agrichemicals on amphibians.

Miami researchers exposed frogs to varying concentrations of atrazine, 0.1, 1, and 10 μg/L, in the laboratory, in order to investigate sex ratios and potential effects on survival of the population. Although no significant effects were seen on survival rate during the course of the study, sex ratios were significantly altered at the 0.1 and 10 μg/L exposure concentrations. At these levels, populations developed 51 and 55% fewer males respectively than control frogs.

Researchers point out that such significant results seen at such low concentrations likely indicates that sex ratios are also skewed in the wild. It is noteworthy that effects seen at 0.1 μg/L, the lowest concentration tested, are lower than the range that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates atrazine will alter sex ratios. EPA indicates that a range between 0.92 and 124 μg/L is likely to skew amphibian sex ratios. This discrepancy, scientists hypothesize, is likely related to the current study’s use of a formulated atrazine product, rather than technical grade atrazine. At the present time, EPA only tests the effects of the active ingredient in a pesticide formulation, and does not consider the impacts of formulations, which often include other active ingredients alongside ‘inert’ ingredients, all of which can increase or decrease the toxicity of the active ingredient. Not only have environmental groups criticized EPA for its repeated failure to test the impacts of pesticide formulations, but earlier this year the agency’s Inspector General called for additional testing of pesticide mixtures.

Skewed sex ratios negatively alter population dynamics, as they influence the maximum rate of population growth and the allocation of ecological resources to either males or females over the course of evolution. The study explains, “EDC [endocrine disrupting chemical]-mediated sex reversal may have important implications for the persistence of wild amphibians, which are facing rapid global declines.”

This is far from the first study showing atrazine’s ability to influence the sex of amphibians. Renowned scientist Tyrone Hayes, PhD, of the University of California Berkeley, has published extensive research documenting a range of impacts to various amphibian species. Results have shown the ability for atrazine not only to skew sex ratios, but also hermaphrodize male frogs, and in some cases make male frogs completely female with the ability to lay eggs.

Scientists, like Dr. Hayes, pushing for the elimination of atrazine in the environment have been attacked by the chemical industry. Syngenta, the main manufacturer of atrazine, has harassed and attempted to discredit his work, as documented in an extensive 2014 report in The New Yorker.

While the adverse effects of this chemical on amphibians are alarming, they are not limited to amphibians. Research on atrazine has found impacts relating to cancer, birth defects, reproductive impacts, kidney/liver damage, and neurotoxicity in humans. A study published just last month found that atrazine hazards affect health across multiple generations, with the grandchildren of rats exposed to atrazine, but never exposed themselves, displaying increased rates of testicular diseases, early onset puberty, and mammary tumors.

Beyond health and the environment, studies show that atrazine use doesn’t even make economic sense. Peer-reviewed research finds that eliminating atrazine in corn production would increase on-farm revenues by 3.2%, resulting in a net benefit of $1.7 billion to farmers. And organic agriculture provides a viable alternative to chemical-intensive food production systems that often employ atrazine or other toxic herbicides. Rather than use hazardous products, organic agriculture focuses on improving soil biology and uses mechanical and cultural weed management, including weed whacking, solarization, cover cropping, and crop rotation to manage weed intrusion.

For more information about the effects of atrazine on amphibian populations, see Dr. Hayes talk to Beyond Pesticides 33^rd National Pesticide Forum in Orlando, FL. Or read an abridged version of his presentation on atrazine published in Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You.

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

Source: Phys.org

(Beyond Pesticides, October 18, 2017) Effective immediately, the European Parliament has banned Monsanto lobbyists, excluding the chemical company from access to committee meetings and digital resources, as well as no longer permitting Monsanto lobbyists to meet with any Member of the European Parliament (MEP). This limit to its influence is a serious blow to Monsanto’s advocacy campaign to promote the safety of its weedkiller glyphosate, (Roundup). The decision to ban came amid mounting public pressure to deny European Union re-licensing of glyphosate, one of the world’s most widely used herbicides. (See glyphosate listing in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticides Gateway, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide.) Glyphosate is classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monsanto, the world’s largest GE-seed and seventh-largest pesticide company, is eager to suppress IARC’s ranking.

In fact, before being banned, the European Parliament had questioned Monsanto’s funding of counter-studies in order to discredit independent scientists working to limit the public’s exposure to toxic chemicals. In a related development, independent scientists sent a letter to the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology, calling for the retraction of a 2016 paper that refuted glyphosate’s cancer risks after it was learned that the paper was secretly edited and funded by Monsanto.

As part of its deliberations on the reauthorization of glyphosate before the end of 2017, the European Parliament had scheduled hearings for October 11 in Brussels. Though being invited to address the Parliament, Monsanto Chairman, Hugh Grant, declined to appear and or send another Monsanto official to address questions about the chemical’s safety and the underlying science.

With authorization given to the Secretary-General, the Parliamentary decision was made using new Rules of Procedure regarding the transparency of business “governing the withdrawal or temporary de-activation of long-term access badges.” As outlined in the parliament’s rules, Monsanto has been “disbarred from the transparency register” for having been found “guilty of a serious breach” of parliamentary rules and expectations. Furthermore, Monsanto “without offering a sufficient justification . . .refused to comply with a formal summons,” and refused to “cooperate with a committee of inquiry.”

The decision was backed by the leaders of all major parliamentary blocks, voting unanimously in favor of the ban. Therefore, according to the rules, having heard no “significant arguments to the contrary,” Monsanto’s sphere of influence in the European Parliament has been dealt a serious blow.

In response to the lobby ban, Monsanto’s vice president Philip Miller wrote: “We have observed with increasing alarm the politicization of the. . .renewal of glyphosate. A procedure which should be scientific but which in many respects has been hijacked by populism.”

Uncovered in a series of emails Monsanto was forced to release as part of a number of pending lawsuits, the chemical company had vowed the herbicide’s safety was repeatedly and rigorously examined by its own researchers, who reported no risk of cancer from the use of or exposure to glyphosate. The company had done only “cosmetic editing” that “didn’t change the science,” with nothing “substantive” done to censor the panelists’ conclusions, said Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy, Scott Partridge.

The type of collusion, recognized by the European Parliament, is part of ongoing pattern. Monsanto has been accused of deceiving federal, state and local governments as well as the general public in the U.S. in other cases. According to its self-declaration form in the EU transparency register, Monsanto routinely spends between €300,000-€400,000 on lobbying in Brussels each year.

Describing the struggles she faced in pursuit of her own master’s degree, Beyond Pesticides’ Board Member, Lani Malmberg, told the 32nd National Pesticide Forum how “all the chemical-funded students got everything paid for and $30,000 a year.” Having “first noticed” how corporate-funding corrupts science in academic institutions, Ms. Malmberg, owner of Goats Green, told her audience: “What do you research? You research the question that the industry gives you.” The questions being: “How much [of a pesticide] should we use? Pint to the acre? Quart to the acre? Should we spray it in the spring, or fall, or both?”

Monsanto is fighting the cancer classification of Roundup as it is  attempting a merger worth $66 billion with German chemical-colossus Bayer. Amid consolidation in the chemical industry, advocates maintain that a combined Monsanto and Bayer would mean higher seed costs, higher food prices and a loss of biodiversity.

Its name already synonymous with genetic engineering and pesticide resistance, Monsanto has good reason to wish to demonize independent research and, more pointedly, the public eye unveiled. The chemical company profits from general societal ignorance of real costs of chemical-intensive practices and the cost-effectiveness of organic land management alternatives.

Meanwhile, more than 250 lawsuits are pending against Monsanto in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, in which people claim exposure to Roundup caused them or a family member to contract non-Hodgkins lymphoma  a cancer affecting white blood cells which can develop in the lymph nodes, bone marrow, spleen, thymus and digestive tract.

The plaintiffs claim that Monsanto covered up the health risks associated with glyphosate. The first trial in the Roundup litigation is set for June 18, 2018 in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco.

To avoid glyphosate, purchase organic food which is not permitted to be treated with glyphosate compounds. Know who grows your food and how your food is grown. Adopt, or personally support organic agriculture and organic lawn care in your community. There are countless experts and instructional videos available to assist in your adoption of organic land management. Continue to raise your voice! Start your own local movement to stop toxic pesticide use around your local school, or sports field. Talk to your neighbors, farmers, and legislators. Contact the elected representatives making decisions that affect your family’s health. And, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450 for assistance, or go to the Beyond Pesticides website.

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

Source: The Guardian