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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Successful Farming, General Mills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Suggested Comment):

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Queen Mary University of London, EcoWatch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.
Sincerely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Environmental Health Perspectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Vancouver Sun,  Canadian Journal of Forest Research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: congress.gov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:CALPIRG

(Beyond Pesticides, February 26, 2019) Breakfast cereal, apples, applesauce and pinto beans made and sold by Kroger contain residues of toxic pesticides linked to a range of series health and environmental problems, according to a residue study by Friends of the Earth.

This is alarming. Kid-friendly food like applesauce and Cheerios should not contain dangerous pesticides. Kids are the most vulnerable to these pesticides and shouldn’t be exposed to brain-damaging or cancer-causing pesticides when they eat their breakfast or snacks. The connection between pesticides and cancer, learning disabilities, and other diseases is supported by hundreds of studies in Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

These new tests, which corroborate numerous residue studies, mean that Kroger customers may be purchasing food with the intent of providing safe and healthy food for their families, but end up unknowingly exposing them to toxic pesticides.

Join the national week of action by either delivering a letter to Kroger in person, or sending an email to Kroger Chief Executive Rodney McMullen.

The pesticides found in Kroger’s food are harmful to human health and pollinators. Friends of the Earth found residues of cancer-causing glyphosate, brain-damaging organophosphates, and bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides.

Organophosphates can cause damage to children’s developing brains, including reduced IQ, loss of memory and attention deficit disorders, as well as acute pesticide poisoning in adults and children. They also poison farmworkers and wildlife including pollinators, birds and aquatic organisms.

Glyphosate, aka Monsanto’s Roundup®, is linked to cancer and has contributed to the widespread die-off of monarch butterflies. Monarchs have declined by over 90 percent in the past two decades and are on the brink of extinction.

Bee-killing neonicotinoids have contributed to widespread bee die-offs, which are critical to every one in three bites of food we eat and many of the foods sold at Kroger.  These pesticides are also associated with endocrine disruption and may lead to changes in behavior and attention.

Kroger should not be selling any food to consumers that is grown with these toxic pesticides.

Join the national week of action by delivering a letter to Kroger in person, or sending an email to Kroger Chief Executive Rodney McMullen

We know Kroger has the power to stop selling products grown with toxic pesticides. Costco adopted a policy to phase out neonicotinoids and chlorpyrifos (an organophosphate pesticide) on the fruits, vegetables and garden plants that it sells. The policy demonstrates that it is possible for supermarkets to eliminate toxic pesticides from store shelves. Kroger has no excuse. It can commit to stop stocking its shelves with food grown with brain damaging organophosphates, Monsanto’s Roundup® and Bayer’s neonicotinoids.

We must shift the market fast if we want to protect public health and save bees and other pollinators. These dangerous pesticides can’t be on supermarket store shelves — especially the healthiest and most affordable foods supermarkets sell.

Please help us to ramp up pressure on Kroger immediately to make sure it doesn’t turn away from the results of this report and takes immediate action.

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2019) A bill introduced in the New York State Assembly and the Senate this month will break the century-long legal exclusion of agricultural workers from common labor protections. Among other protections, the Farmworker Fair Labor Practices Act will give New York farmworkers the right to collective bargaining, making employer intimidation and retaliation against organizing workers illegal. Citing farmworkers’ exposure to toxic chemicals among other occupational risks, former dairy farmworker and worker organizer Crispin Hernandez states, “The legislation would do a lot to end the pervasive climate of fear, intimidation and retaliation that exists on farms today. It would also make farmworkers’ lives safer.”

The National Farm Worker Ministry notes that, “A union contract allows workers to report problems on the job without fear of getting fired.” In the case of farmworkers, problems on the job include exposures to toxic pesticides that workers, if organized, could freely report and collectively negotiate to remove from use to ensure their safety.

The bill, introduced to the Assembly by Queens Assemblymember Cathy Nolan and to the Senate by freshman Senator Jessica Ramos (D), will amend the New York State Labor Relations Act (NYSLRA) by removing farmworkers from the list of excluded laborers. “To me there is no greater imperative than ensuring that farmworkers have their rights before we increase farming in our state,” said Senator Ramos, referring to the potential development of a new legalized marijuana industry that would expand the state’s agricultural sector.

The NYSLRA was modeled directly after the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which, together with the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, excluded farmworkers and domestic workers from labor protections. At the time that those laws were drafted, the agricultural and domestic workforce consisted largely of African Americans. Advocates maintain that the roots of these laws, and their continued application to a now largely Latinx population, are based in structural racism.

The new legislation is supported by the New York Civil Liberties Union, on the basis that, “Organization for the purposes of negotiation, furtherance of interests, and mutual protection is a civil liberty, shared by private and public employees alike.” However, as with past versions, A.1867 is receiving pushback from the New York Farm Bureau, which is urging public hearings to voice concerns over economic security for farms that employ agricultural laborers, the vast majority of which are large industrialized corporate farms. “I am willing to hear both sides, but nothing is going to convince me that these farmworkers don’t deserve their human rights,” says Senator Ramos.

In parallel to the legislative push, Mr. Hernandez, now an organizer at the Worker’s Center of Central New York, filed a lawsuit this month against the state and the Farm Bureau on the grounds that denying farmworkers the rights to organize and collectively bargain under the current NYSLRA is in violation of the state constitution. Results of the case are pending, and a decision is expected in the coming months.

Current national and state labor laws fail to provide agricultural workers the collective power to ensure working conditions safe from toxic pesticide exposures and other workplace hazards. Amendments to the FLSA in the 1960s earned farmworkers a subset of minimum protections, such as minimum wage and recordkeeping provisions, but did not give workers the power to collectively ensure safe working conditions. Similarly, the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act of 1983 offered some additional protections, such as disclosure requirements for employers, but did not grant farmworkers the right to collective bargaining or unionizing.

With reference to the FLSA, the nonprofit Farmworker Justice states, “The law’s protections against the hazards of students working in shopping malls are stronger than the protections against children working in agriculture where toxic pesticides, heavy machinery and other hazards threaten their future.” Protections for children are arguably the most lacking and the most imperative in the agricultural sector, where neurodevelopmental toxins and endocrine disruptors put youth at especially high risk.

New York farmworkers and farmworker justice advocates have been pushing for amendments to the NYLSA for over 20 years, but the state has not passed any new agricultural labor legislation since 1999. The last New York agricultural labor reform bill came to the senate in 2010, where it lost by three votes. With a Democratic-controlled State Senate, this might be the year the bill breaks through.

In recent years, the agricultural justice movement has gained new momentum in New York, sparked in large part by Hernandez’s organizing efforts. Fueled by public support in the face of his employer’s retaliation against organizing activities, Mr. Hernandez filed a lawsuit against the state in 2016. In a symbolic victory, Governor Andrew Cuomo and former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman both agreed publicly that the farmworker exclusion in the NYLSA violated the state constitution, and neither defended the lawsuit in court. However, as in the current case, the Farm Bureau intervened, testifying that the seasonal nature of agricultural work necessitates limiting workers’ ability to organize. The case was closed in 2018, with the majority opinion denying any constitutional violations. Undeterred, Mr. Hernandez and fellow worker advocates are keeping the momentum alive, fighting on two fronts this time.

The movement for farmworker justice holds intimate ties to the fight for stronger pesticide regulations. Cesar Chavez, the esteemed lifelong advocate for farmworker rights and founder of United Farm Workers (UFW), put his full energy into the fight against pesticides, drawing attention to the poisoning of farmworkers and their children. However, in recent years progress has been stymied in large part by employer intimidation and retaliation of workers attempting to organize.

Current regulations are not viewed by Beyond Pesticides as adequately protection of agricultural workers, and farmworker poisoning continues unchecked, begging the question: if the government does not protect workers and their families, and employers do not protect workers and their families, who will? With renewed energy in the labor movement, farmworker coalitions are positioning themselves to bring negotiation and labor tactics back as tools for transforming agricultural practices. Learn more about historic efforts and active organizations fighting for farmworker justice on the Beyond Pesticides Agricultural Justice page. Stay abreast of new developments in the movement for agricultural transformation by following the Daily News Blog.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2019) Lake Erie, the 11^th largest freshwater lake in the world, is once again plagued with pollution, although in this decade it is due primarily to agricultural runoff — as opposed to the raw sewage and industrial effluents that afflicted it in the mid-20^th century. Concerned and weary Toledo, Ohio residents are seeking remedies through the adoption of a ballot initiative, “Lake Erie Bill of Rights,” that will go before local voters this month. It asks: should Lake Erie, as an entity, have the legal right “to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve”? The New York Times reported on this unusual ballot question, which asks whether the lake ought to be granted rights more typically ascribed to people. If the measure passes, people would be able to sue polluters on behalf of the lake, using the argument that Lake Erie’s rights had been violated.

Fifty years ago, prior to the passage of the 1972 Clean Water Act, U.S. water bodies, including the Great Lakes and their tributaries, were in big trouble. One of Lake Erie’s tributaries — the Cuyahoga River — became infamous for literally catching fire due to the sewage and industrial waste that were freely dumped into it. The Michigan Environmental Council, in reviewing the book When Our Rivers Caught Fire, by John Hartig, noted the author’s chronicling of the “rise of Great Lakes industrialization in the early and mid-20^th century, when the lakes and their tributaries were considered public sewers and waste disposal lagoons.” Mr. Hartig wrote: “Industry was king, and dirty rivers were considered a sign of prosperity.” That barometer of success is happily behind us, but the agro-chemical sector continues to be a mighty contributor to pollution of the Great Lakes, through its production, marketing, and sales of synthetic, petrochemically derived fertilizers, and pesticides.

Lake Erie has endured, in recent years, summertime algal blooms spurred by terrestrial runoff containing animal manure and synthetic fertilizers, as well as the consequences of invasive fish species. The lake is also at risk of impacts from oil spills, from both vessels traversing the lake and pipelines that operate nearby. Fouling of public resources, despite real and significant progress from the 1970s through the first decade-plus of the 21^st century, continues to threaten public health and the integrity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, as well as the environmental services they provide. Currently, pollution of waterways tends to comprise agricultural runoff (nutrient pollution, especially phosphorous and nitrogen); pesticide contamination; and the occasional industrial (petroleum, chemical, or mining) accident or malfeasance.

Given the current administration in Washington, DC, and its goal for federal agencies of “reducing regulation,” these issues again are rising to the forefront of concern. A 2017 Gallup poll found that across the nation, people are more concerned about water pollution than they have been in nearly two decades: in the poll, 63% of people “worry a great deal about pollution of drinking water,” and 57% “worry a great deal about pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.”

Toledoans for Safe Water, an advocacy group, gathered 11,000 signatures in an effort to advance the ballot initiative, which was drafted with the assistance of CELDF, the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (see more below). The health of Lake Erie is no small thing to Toledo-area residents, who depend on the lake for their drinking water. In 2014, the city all but closed down when the lake became so polluted with the slimy algal mats — from phosphorus runoff from upstream farms — that hospitals and stores and restaurants shuttered, and half a million people had to depend on bottled water in that year’s very hot August.

The text of the ballot question begins: “Establishing a bill of rights for Lake Erie, which prohibits activities and projects that would violate the bill of rights: We the people of the City of Toledo declare that Lake Erie and the Lake Erie watershed comprise an ecosystem upon which millions of people and countless species depend for health, drinking water and survival. We further declare that this ecosystem, which has suffered for more than a century under continuous assault and ruin due to industrialization, is in imminent danger of irreversible devastation due to continued abuse by people and corporations enabled by reckless government policies, permitting and licensing of activities that unremittingly create cumulative harm, and lack of protective intervention. Continued abuse consisting of direct dumping of industrial wastes, runoff of noxious substances from large scale agricultural practices, including factory hog and chicken farms, combined with the effects of global climate change, constitute an immediate emergency.”

This effort, like a number of similar initiatives that have taken place in various municipalities in recent years, rests on a “Rights of Nature” argument, which says that features of the natural world have an inherent right to exist with fundamental integrity intact. Because critical to our legal and judicial system is the notion of “standing” — the legal right to bring suit against an entity by virtue of enduring harm — such efforts look to establish legal status for an aspect, or aspects, of the local natural world, such as a water body, forest, fauna, flora, etc. Legal arguments in litigation brought on this basis often seek to demonstrate that current laws are inadequate to protect nature against environmental harm.

Other, similar initiatives include: Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania, approved in 2006 a Rights of Nature ordinance after it banned industry from dumping dredged minerals and sewage sludge into open pit mines. The law said that corporations “could not ‘interfere with the existence and flourishing of natural communities or ecosystems, or to cause damage’ to them within the township.” 2010 saw the passage of a Pittsburgh city ordinance that prohibited fracking within city limits. In 2013, Santa Monica, California passed a law requiring the city to “recognize the rights of people, natural communities and ecosystems to exist, regenerate and flourish.”

In Minnesota, the White Earth Band of Ojibwe recently passed a tribal law establishing the natural rights of a plant central to their culture — wild rice (Zizania aquatica), or manoomin, the Ojibwe term. It is the first time that a plant has been granted “personhood” in the U.S., and is understood to be establishing a foundation on which to mount opposition to an Enbridge Energy oil pipeline that would threaten waters in which local tribes have treaty rights to harvest rice, hunt, and fish. A similar law has been adopted by a Chippewa tribal group, the 1855 Treaty Authority, that represents the beneficiaries of an 1855 land pact between the Chippewa tribes and the U.S. government.

Of course, there are opponents to Rights of Nature initiatives. In the Toledo case, opposition comes primarily from large agricultural operations in the area, which shed the fertilizer runoff (which often include pesticide residues, which can cause fish kills) that feeds the toxic algae in Lake Erie, causing lethal-to-other-life algal blooms that deprive the water of oxygen. Farmers say that if the measure passes, thousands of farms could be sued for damages for polluting the lake and be driven out of business. Proponents of the initiative admit that should the question win at the ballot, it will very likely be challenged in court — either as having little legal footing (i.e., standing) or precedent, and/or as reaching beyond the scope of city law.

During the past decade-plus, other attempts to establish nature-based rights have been supported and guided by CELDF. The organization describes its work as “a paradigm shift, a move away from unsustainable practices that harm communities, and a move towards local self-government.” It helps communities with establishment of legal community rights, including environmental rights, worker rights, rights of nature, and democratic rights. Typically, establishment of such rights happens through creation of local laws that seek to set out one or more of those rights as a basis for preventing activities that a community finds unacceptable — most often, activities such as fracking, water pollution, unhealthful working conditions, pesticide use, or the environmental and/or labor ravages of particular industries, such as mining.

The Toledo effort, and a number of others around the country, perhaps owe some of their grounding to a 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Sierra Club v. Morton (Roger Morton, then U.S. Secretary of the Interior). In that case, the Sierra Club sought — and failed — to prevent development of a portion of the Sequoia National Forest; the court found, 4–3, that the Sierra Club did not have standing in the suit because it failed to show that any of its members had suffered or would suffer injury as a result of the defendant’s actions. But Justices William O. Douglas, Harry A. Blackmun, and William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote critical dissenting opinions, respectively, opining that “standing doctrine should allow environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club to sue on behalf of inanimate objects such as land”; that “when faced with new issues of potentially enormous and permanent consequences, such as environmental issues, the Court should not be quite so rigid about its legal requirements”; and that the Court should have considered the case on its merits. Justice William O. Douglas additionally wrote that “contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.”

Of the Toledo ballot initiative, CELDF Executive Director Thomas Linzey has said that the “intent of the initiative is twofold — to send a warning that the community is fed up with a lack of state and federal action to protect Lake Erie, and to force the courts to recognize that ecosystems like the lake ‘possess independent rights to survive and be healthy. In other words, that rivers have a right to flow, forests have a right to thrive, and lakes have a right to be clean.” Even if the ballot measure fails in Toledo, CELDF indicates, such efforts demonstrate the resolve of communities to fight environmental degradation, and send the message that some companies might better look elsewhere to do business. Supporters of Rights of Nature initiatives are, some environmentalists say, inviting a rethinking of nature and the place of humans in it. As Mr. Linzey said, “There’s no precedent for any of this. It is almost a new consciousness — that a community is not just Homo sapiens.”

Beyond Pesticides has written previously about the risks to water, ecosystems, and organisms of nutrient- and pesticide-riddled agricultural runoff, not only from farms, but also, from golf courses and other managed landscapes, and about the advantages of organic land management. (Some time ago, Beyond Pesticides reported about the health of water resources nationally.) Beyond Pesticides advocates for the protective — and regenerative — advantages of organic, ecologically based agriculture. Stay current with developments in efforts to protect human and environmental health through its Daily News Blog.

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/us/lake-erie-legal-rights.html

(Beyond Pesticides, February 21, 2019) In 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved 16.2 million acres of crops to be sprayed with the bee-toxic insecticide sulfoxaflor under an emergency exemption. Sulfoxaflor was used in 18 different states on cotton and sorghum — plants known to attract bees.

In response to a lawsuit headed by beekeepers, the EPA reclassified sulfoxaflor in 2016 and, recognizing its toxicity to bees, prohibited use on crops that draw in these pollinators. However, Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) gives the EPA authority to permit temporary emergency use of unapproved pesticides. This loophole is used regularly in response to predictable stressors. “Emergency” use was approved 78 times for sulfoxaflor on sorghum and cotton between 2012-2017.

Sulfoxaflor is a systemic insecticide that acts similarly to neonicotinoid pesticides. After application, the chemical is absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen and nectar. These kinds of chemicals are selective agonists of insects’ nicotinic acetylcholine receptors—they bind to the receptor and cause it to activate. The impact on foraging bees is sublethal, but devastating on a population level. Even at low levels, sulfoxaflor impairs reproduction and reduces bumblebee colony size. Sufloxaflor is functionally identical to the pesticide imidacloprid, which negatively impacts foraging and immune responses in bees.

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

With 41% of insects on the fast track to extinction, advocates say that EPA’s continued malfeasance is unacceptable. The consequences of ignoring the impact of toxic pesticides in favor of short-term gains in crop yields are not hypothetical or minute. A third of worldwide food production is owed to pollinators, and they are disappearing fast. There is a real emergency at hand.

Beyond Pesticides has long pushed for a precautionary approach to pesticide approval and use.

Considering the insect apocalypse (among other environmental catastrophes), it is absolutely necessary to not only limit use of specific toxic pesticides, but also promote regenerative and organic practices.

You can write to your Congressional legislators and urge them to close the Section 18 emergency loophole and adopt all the suggestions of the Office of the Inspector General. If you are looking for a hands-on way to support your local pollinators, you can utilize Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective Habitat Guide this spring.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, February 20, 2019) Women exposed to DDT during ‘early windows of susceptibility’ in their childhood are at increased risk of developing breast cancer, according to new research published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Nearly 75 years after the chemical was first used in the U.S., and 50 years after its ban, DDT is continuing to adversely affect the health of Americans. The data brings needed attention to the dangers of early-life pesticide exposure, and underlines the need to take a precautionary approach to the introduction of biocides in our environment so that future generations do not suffer from the same mistakes of the past.

“What we have learned is that timing really matters. We know that if harmful exposures occur at times when breast tissue is rapidly changing, such as during puberty, they impact breast development in ways that can later result in cancer,” said lead author Barbara A. Cohn, PhD, of the Public Health Institute’s (PHI) Child Health and Development Studies. “The research published today suggests that DDT affects breast cancer as an endocrine disruptor, that the period of time between first exposure and cancer risk seems to be around 40 years–and that other endocrine disrupting chemicals could potentially simulate this kind of risk pattern.”

PHI and Dr. Cohn’s research has followed over 15,000 women for nearly six decades of life, tracking participants’ body burden (the amount of chemical contamination measured in an individual) of DDT in their blood at first exposure, during pregnancy, and if diagnosed with breast cancer. Researchers identified 153 individuals diagnosed with breast cancer from state records. Then, using data on exposure levels collected during pregnancies from 1959 to 1967, each diagnosed woman was matched up with up to three women enrolled in the study who did not develop breast cancer (in order to provide a control variable).

According to a PHI press release, the researchers found that:

• A woman’s first exposure to p,p’-DDT was associated with the timing of her breast cancer diagnosis, which occurred approximately 40 years later.
• A doubling of DDT was associated with an almost three-fold increased risk of postmenopausal breast cancer (at age 50-54) for women first exposed after infancy.
• Women at increased risk for premenopausal breast cancer (before age 50) were first exposed to DDT during in utero and infancy through puberty, but not after the age of 14; the highest risk was associated with first exposure before age 3.
• DDT exposure during childhood and puberty (ages 3-13) was a risk factor for both early (before age 50) and later breast cancer (age 50-54).
• Women who were first exposed after age 14 only had an increased risk of breast cancer after menopause (age 50-54). These women were not at increased risk for breast cancer before the age of 50.

“Even though there have been many studies of the environment and breast cancer, only a very small fraction have actually measured environmental exposures during windows of susceptibility, in this case in early infancy and prior to menarche,” said study author Mary Beth Terry, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology and Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University and the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center. “The studies that have measured environmental exposures during windows of susceptibility, like our study, are much more consistent in supporting a positive association with breast cancer risk,” said Dr. Terry.

As this study reveals, exposure to pesticides as children are developing can result in a higher risk of disease later into life. Unfortunately, researchers can only determine these impacts in hindsight through epidemiological studies. While DDT is the poster child for this concern, other ‘legacy’ chemicals –unnecessarily still in use – are emerging as modern contenders. Glyphosate for example, first registered as an herbicide in the early 1970s, has now accumulated significant data on its carcinogenicity. Paraquat, first registered in the 1960s, is now strongly linked to the onset of Parkinson’s disease. And linuron, also registered in the 1960s was only recently shown to be associated with the development of Multiple Sclerosis. These are only snapshots of the range of science that continues to accumulate linking pesticide exposure to the development of disease later in life.

These studies, and the predictable lag time between exposure, health impacts, and epidemiological data on those impacts should lead lawmakers and regulators to consider taking a more precautionary approach to the introduction of these chemicals into the environment.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for an alternatives assessment in the registration of pesticides. The alternatives assessment approach rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under the current model of evaluating pesticides when there are available alternatives available to manage insect and weed issues. For example, in agriculture, where data shows clear links to pesticide use and cancer, it would no longer be possible to use hazardous pesticides when there are organic systems with competitive productivity.

Support a precautionary approach and system of food production that eschews toxic pesticides as a regular course of action by buying organic whenever possible, particularly for young children with growing bodies more susceptible to chemical exposure. Read more and help spread the word about the hazards pesticides pose to children through our Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix fact sheet.

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

Source: Public Health Institute Press Release