(Beyond Pesticides, October 4, 2018) According to new research from the University of Texas at Austin, glyphosate, the world’s most widely used agrichemical weed killer, may also be killing bees by impairing their gut microbiota, and subsequently, their immune systems.  The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, titled Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees, notes these findings as evidence glyphosate could very well be contributing to the sharp decline of pollinators seen throughout the world over the past decade.

Researchers began with a single hive and collected several hundred worker bees. One group of bees was fed a sterile sugar syrup, while others were exposed to levels of glyphosate equal to what is found in conventional crop fields, lawns and highway medians. To aid tracking and recapture, bees were marked with colored dots based on their grouping. Researchers sampled 15 individuals from each group of worker bees right before and three days after reintroduction back to the hive. At both times, DNA from the insects’ guts was extracted to observe whether glyphosate had significantly altered microbial diversity within their organ system.

Results found relatively minimal impacts to bees tested prior to their reintroduction to the hive. However, bees tested three days after returning to their hive revealed significant changes in their gut make-up, trending towards lower levels of important beneficial gut bacteria when compared to unexposed bees. Of eight key species of beneficial bacteria in the exposed honey bees’ microbiome, four were found to be less abundant.  In fact, the bacteria species most directly affected, Snodgrassella alvi, is crucial for aiding the bees’ ability to both process food and defend against harmful pathogens.

Erick Motta, the graduate student who led the research, said: “We need better guidelines for glyphosate use, especially regarding bee exposure,” noting that EPA regulation guidelines “assume bees are not harmed by the herbicide,” though this study, like others, shows such an assumption of safety to be wildly ill-informed.

Indeed, such diverse bacteria are what keep immune systems resilient against illness and other types of stresses.  Regardless of their role in maintaining a functioning immune system, the chemical industry has trolled homeowners to both distrust and work swiftly to exterminate all bacteria with a panoply of toxic products.

As a result of glyphosate exposure, honey bees with weakened gut microbiomes were later more likely to die after coming in contact with the widespread pathogen, Serratia marcescens.  Noting the pathogen’s detrimental effect on honey bees, about half of unexposed honey bees with healthy immune systems were able stave off infection and stay alive eight days after contracting the pathogen.  Comparatively, only one tenth of the bees exposed to glyphosate were still alive eight days after contracting the pathogen.  Without a resilient immune system propped up by a healthy microbiome, the study finds further evidence that living organisms find it increasingly difficult to maintain health amidst our toxic-plagued urban environments and conventional agriculture.

Such a negative impact on gut microbiome is devastating for pollinators already assailed by immune-system-compromising chemicals, scarcity of diverse forage, and environmental pressures on habitat. Glyphosate, for all who are not familiar, is one of the world’s most widely and indiscriminately sprayed pesticides.  Its annual use in the U.S. has soared from 40 million pounds in the mid-1990s to around 300 million pounds used annually today.  And unsurprisingly, resistance to the pesticide continues to increase in target species due such excessive use.

This isn’t the first study to find adverse impacts from pollinator exposure to glyphosate. In 2015, a study linked glyphosate exposure to impaired learning in honey bees, with evidence that field realistic doses of the chemical cause delays in the return of foraging honey bees to the hive.

And the effect of glyphosate on gut diversity is not limited to pollinators, according to recent research. Beyond Pesticides summer 2017 Pesticides and You article, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed explores how this herbicide may also be weakening human immune systems by disrupting our gut microbiome.

As co-author of the study, Professor Nancy Moran, Ph.D., stated to Sustainable Pulse: “Studies in humans, bees and other animals have shown that the gut microbiome is a stable community that resists infection by opportunistic invaders. So if you disrupt the normal, stable community, you are more susceptible to this invasion of pathogens.”

Important work on the human gut microbiome has be getting more public attention. The summer 2017 issue of Beyond Pesticides’ journal, Pesticides and You, contains an article on the importance of soil microbiota and human gut microbome. The lead article, Sustaining Life: From Soil Microbiota to Gut Microbiome by professor of geomorphology (University of Washington) and author David Montgomery, PhD, contains excerpts from Dr. Montgomery’s talk to Beyond Pesticides’ 35^th National Pesticide Forum, documenting the importance of soil microbiota to healthy soil, resilient plants, and sustainability. (See Dr. Montgomery’s full talk.) His piece explains the essentiality of bacteria in the human gut to a healthy life, with profound implications for both agriculture and medicine. Dr. Montgomery points to a “bonafide scientific revolution” in recognizing the failure to nurture the ecosystem in nature and the human body and the associated adverse health effects resulting from pesticide use –21^st century diseases, including asthma, autism, bacterial vaginosis, cardiovascular disease, cancer, Crohn’s disease, depression, inflammatory bowel disease, leaky gut syndrome, multiple sclerosis, obesity, Type 1 and 2 diabetes, and Parkinson’s. For more information, see Daily News.

Additional information on glyphosate can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Gateway entry for the chemical. For more resources on how pesticides impact pollinators, and information about what you can do visit the What the Science Shows page, and watch Beyond Pesticides’ new video Seeds that Poison.

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

Source: Sustainable Pulse

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 3, 2018) REMINDER: The Fall 2018 NOSB public comments are due by Thursday, October 4, 2018. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label. Written comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov  until 11:59 pm ET October 4, 2018. Reservations for in-person and webinar comments close at the same time.

The proposals of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, are published for public comment. On our Keeping Organic Strong page, Beyond Pesticides will be providing the public with a listing and analysis of the issues under consideration of the Board when it meets in Saint Paul, MN on October 24 – 26, 2018. You can view USDA’s announcement of the NOSB’s meeting and proposals here.

Issues before the NOSB include materials allowed in organic production as well as some policy issues. Materials are either the subject of petitions or the subject of sunset review (concerning whether to be allowed for another 5 years). To be allowed, materials must have evidence summarized in the proposals that they meet the OFPA requirements of essentiality, no adverse effects on humans and the environment, and compatibility with organic practices.

Major issues before the NOSB at the Fall 2018 meeting include:

• Natamycinis an antimicrobial proposed for post-harvest use on organic food crops. It is used in medicine to treat a number of diseases. Natamycin is produced by fermentation, and the NOSB may classify it as a natural material, which would allow its use without restriction. The NOSB should list natamycin on Sections 602 and 604, to prohibit its use in organic crop and livestock production, where use would promote resistance to this medically valuable antimicrobial medication. See Beyond Pesticides comments.
• Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) is proposed as a crop fumigant. It would be difficult to find a practice less compatible with organic production than soil fumigation with a “broad-spectrum antimicrobial compound that effectively kills both plant pathogens and beneficial soil microorganisms.” Organic production uses practices that feed soil organisms who feed crop plants. It creates healthy soil food webs. Using a toxic chemical to wipe out soil biology is the antithesis of organic practices. The petition for AITC should be rejected because it is hazardous, not essential for organic production, and incompatible with organic practices. See Beyond Pesticides draft comments.
• Silver Dihydrogen Citrate (SDC)is an antimicrobial with important medical uses that is proposed for use in handling produce and poultry carcasses. Although the proposed annotation eliminates the nanosilver form, SDC poses health and environmental risks –particularly the risk of increasing resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials. The petition for SDC must be denied to protect the effectiveness of remaining antimicrobial medications. See Beyond Pesticides comments.

Written comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov  until 11:59 pm ET October 4, 2018.

Not sure how to use our suggested language to comment? Follow these simple steps:

1. Select the text in our comments (place your cursor before the first word in the text, then press and hold down the left mouse button and, without releasing the button, move the cursor to the end of the comments).
2. Copy the selected text by selecting the Ctrl and C keys simultaneously.
3. Click on this linkto open a new tab and in that tab, place your cursor in the “Comment” box.
4. Paste the comments you copied by selecting the Ctrl and V keys simultaneously.
5. Personalize your comments before entering your contact information and selecting “Continue”.

More information will be available soon on Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage to learn more about these and other substantive issues, and to provide a unique public comment to the NOSB.

Thank you for helping to protect and uphold organic integrity!

Please take action now!

(Beyond Pesticides, October 2, 2018) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is asking an appeals court to rehear a case that previously ruled EPA must immediately ban the brain-harming pesticide chlorpyrifos. The agency is requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco convene an “en banc hearing,” which is a session held in front of the all judges in the court, rather than a panel of three judges.  An “en banc” request is generally only accepted when an issue conflicts with a previous court decision, or is of significant importance for the general public.

The move by EPA, now under the purview of Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, is the latest attempt by the agency to keep the highly toxic organophosphate insecticide on the market. It marks a continuation of the policy approach taken by former Administrator Scott Pruitt, who famously met with Dow Chemical’s CEO Andrew Leveris weeks before EPA reversed course on chlorpyrifos.

Under the Obama administration, the agency announced its intent to cancel agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos due to strong evidence of harm to the brain and proper development of children. This move itself was the result of a petition and hard fought legal case by Pesticide Action Network and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

However, the Obama EPA did not finalize the chlorpyrifos cancelation before leaving office, providing an opportunity for the Trump administration and then-Administrator Pruitt to make a last-ditch effort to keep chlorpyrifos on the market. In its refusal, EPA indicated falsely that the science around the chemical was “unresolved” and that the agency would continue studying the chemical until 2022, when its registration is required to be renewed.

In response to the about-face by the Pruitt EPA, Earthjustice and a coalition of other groups sued EPA for its delay. That lawsuit was successful, resulting in an order from the appeals court requiring EPA ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days. In its ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, and in consideration of the health impacts the court said, “If Congress’s statutory mandates are to mean anything, the time has come to put a stop to this patent evasion.”

With its “en banc” request, EPA is continuing its efforts to find any route possible to protect Dow Chemical’s market share. In its request to the court, the U.S. Justice Department argues: “The panel’s order limiting EPA’s options on remand conflicts with Supreme Court precedent holding that where an agency’s order is not sustainable on the record, a court should vacate the underlying decision and remand for further consideration by the agency, rather than directing specific action.”

Essentially, the the government’s lawyers are arguing that the court should have let EPA continue to study chlorpyrifos, rather than order the agency to ban it.

As this case continue to wind through the courts, many states are deciding not to wait for the federal government before protecting residents from the highly toxic insecticide. In August, California listed chlorpyrifos as a toxic air contaminant based on risk of exposure from drift after an application. Hawaii took the strongest action yet, with lawmakers in the state legislature voting to ban all uses of the chemical starting in 2019.

Although health advocates continue to wait for a solution to chlorpyrifos contamination in the courts, there are other opportunities to stop chlorpyrifos at the federal level. Keep the pressure up by urging your Senators to support S. 1624, the Protect Children Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017. You can also get active on the issue in your state by urging your state lawmakers to follow in Hawaii’s lead.

For more information on chlorpyrifos and the legal case surrounding its use, see Beyond Pesticides’ article Widely Used Pesticide in Food Production Damages Children’s Brains: EPA science on chlorpyrifos ignored as agency reverses decision to stop insecticide’s agricultural use.

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

Source: DTN Progressive Farmer

(Beyond Pesticides, October 1, 2018) Last year, pesticide manufacturers tried to undo local pesticide ordinances in a large state-by-state lobbying effort. That failed. Now they are trying to get Congress to undo these local rules in one fell swoop through an amendment in the Farm Bill.

In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of local governments to restrict pesticides. The chemical industry’s attempt to take away the power of local governments to regulate the use of pesticides was wrong then and it is wrong now –more so, given the current weakening of federal pesticide programs.

Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper!

The fight to defend the authority of local governments to protect people and the environment has been ongoing for decades. Against a backdrop of decades of pro-pesticide lobbying to limit local authority to restrict pesticide use in our communities and despite industry’s success, there has been nationwide action at the local level. In most states, local authority, under state law, is limited to restrictions on public property, and seven states have affirmed the right of localities to restrict pesticides on all land within its jurisdiction. Because of effective efforts across the state of Maine, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-backed group, backed a failed effort over the last two years to take away, or preempt, local authority in the Maine state legislature. Meanwhile, more than 60 local officials from across the country sent a letter to Congress in mid-September opposing a Farm Bill provision that takes away local governments’ authority to restrict hazardous pesticides. The provision will overturn the Supreme Court decision and prevent communities from adopting protective laws that meet the needs of their residents or unique local environment.

“Existing federal law regulating pesticide use has long given states and local governments the authority to craft pesticide policy tailored to local needs, and there is no reason for that long-standing policy to change in this Farm Bill,” Senator Angus King (I-ME) told the Bangor Daily News. “I broadly believe in local control and states’ rights, and in this case, I hope that the final Farm Bill will reflect the Senate’s version by not including this provision to restrict state and local government’s ability to enact their own pesticide standards,” he said.

This controversy has emerged at the same time that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reversed decisions intended to protect public health.

Last month, a federal court ordered EPA to ban a widely used pesticide because it ignored findings from its own staff about its dangers to children and farmers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that EPA failed to counteract “scientific evidence that [chlorpyrifos] residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children.” It also faulted the EPA for not following the assessment from agency scientists that the pesticide was harmful.

A jury verdict last month awarded a groundskeeper stricken with non Hodgkins lymphoma $289 million in a case that showed harmed caused by Monsanto’s product glyphosate/Roundup. Many communities want to ban Roundup in the face of EPA inaction.

For more good reading on this subject, see (i) an op-ed written by two mayors, (ii) an editorial in the Portland Press Herald (ME), and (iii) and editorial in the Bangor Daily News (ME).

Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper!

Letters to the editor can have a major influence on public opinion, especially that of lawmakers representing the community. Most smaller or regional newspapers have a word limit of around 250 words, while larger metropolitan newspapers limit letters to 150 words. We suggest a 150-word letter that you can personalize. If your newspaper is a smaller paper, you can add talking points to increase the effectiveness of your letter.

Sample letter:

With legislation pending in Congress to take away our community’s right to restrict pesticides, it is critical that our newspapers and politicians take a stand against this effort that undermines democratic principles. The pro-pesticide lobby –chemical, pest control, and chemical lawn care companies— has long tried to undo the growing number of local pesticide ordinances state-by-state, having failed to accomplish this in the U.S. Supreme Court. Now they want Congress to undo local rules in one fell swoop through the Farm Bill.

A number of cities have passed landmark legislation to restrict pesticides, require organic land care, and protect public health. Federal preemption of local authority is contrary to our country’s founding principles. Local governments hold public hearings, conduct research on adverse pesticide effects, learn about the efficacy of ecological land management practices, and often decide pesticides are not necessary. That is a right that must be honored and preserved.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 28, 2018) Despite French President, Emmanuel Macron’s pledge to see glyphosate banned in his country, French ministers of parliament (MPs) have once again refused to enter the banning of glyphosate into legislation. Glyphosate’s use in Europe has come under scrutiny and heated debate. But despite evidence of harms, and interference by Monsanto, the European Union (EU) extended its license last year. However, France has pledged to ban the chemical within a few years.

French MPs –who were voting at second reading on a comprehensive reform measure aimed at reforming the trade relations in the agricultural sector and promoting healthier food – have once again refused to approve the banning of glyphosate. A promise by Emmanuel Macron, the banning of glyphosate within the next three years was not initially included in the government’s bill. Following the intensification of the debate about the herbicide’s renewal at European level, the question of including the president’s promise in the legislative text was posed in the parliamentary debate. In May, MPs followed recommendations of the government to consider a ban. But they were opposed to a ban within the framework of the French law, and rejected the amendments mentioning a ban of the Monsanto herbicide.

The debate over glyphosate and whether to renew its license in the EU gained global attention last year. Representatives from 18 of the 28 member states voted in favor of the European Commission’s proposal for a five-year renewal. France was against the decision. President Emmanuel Macron wanted a shorter extension and a rapid phasing out of glyphosate. After the vote, he said he would take all necessary measures to ban the product, originally developed by Monsanto, as soon as an alternative is available and at the latest within three years, and will continue to engage at the pan-European level to abolish glyphosate use.

In 2015, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” Since then, Monsanto has been hard at work trying to undermine findings that show its flagship product, glyphosate, is anything other than “safe.” However, its attempts to unduly influence and undermine scientific research and government review of its product has been disclosed widely in the press. Concerns about cancer are compounded when tests continue to detect glyphosate is common foods. Glyphosate levels were found in Cheerios, Pita Chips, and in breast milk,  German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and bread, as well as in nearly 100% of Germans tested. In the U.S., public interest, food safety, and environmental organizations have been calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban glyphosate.

A California jury found Monsanto liable in a lawsuit filed by a man who worked as a groundskeeper and used the company’s glyphosate-based herbicide, which he proved caused his cancer. The jury, which awarded the groundskeeper $289 million, found that Monsanto “knew for decades” the product was potentially dangerous and acted “with malice or oppression” by failing to warn Johnson of the risks. Bayer’s Monsanto claims that the verdict does not reflect the scientific data. “While we are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family, glyphosate is not responsible for his illness, and the verdict in this case should be reversed or set aside,” Bayer (which merged with Monsanto earlier this year) said in a September 18 statement. The company is now requesting the judge to reverse the verdict, reduce the award, or grant a new trial for the company. Over 8,000 similar lawsuits are pending in U.S. courts

While federal oversight and regulation lag behind, environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or ban the use of glyphosate and other unnecessary toxic pesticides. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through the Tools for Change webpage. This page is designed to help activists and other concerned citizens organize around a variety of pesticide issues on the local, state, and national level. Learn how to organize a campaign and talk to your neighbors about pesticides with our factsheets.

If you want to take action in your community to ban glyphosate, use Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet and report to advance your effort: See our factsheet on glyphosate/Roundup, our report Glyphosate/Roundup Exposed, and coverage and background on the glyphosate/Roundup lawsuit.

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

Source: Euractiv

(Beyond Pesticides, September 27, 2018) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report finding the agency’s practice of routinely granting “emergency” approval through its Section 18 program for pesticide use does not effectively measure risks to human health or the environment.

The inspector general recommends EPA “develop and implement applicable outcome-based performance measures to demonstrate the human health and environmental effects of the EPA’s emergency exemption decisions.” EPA disagreed with the recommendation, leaving the issue of chronic overuse of the emergency exemptions unresolved. Under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the EPA has the authority to approve the temporary emergency use of unapproved pesticides if the agency determines the pesticide is needed to prevent the spread of an unexpected outbreak of crop-damaging insects, for example. But this provision has been widely abused.

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

Beyond Pesticides has firmly opposed the current use of the Section 18. Through the Section 18, or emergency exemption program, EPA allows the use of pesticides that are not registered for a particular crop, or in some cases not registered for use at all, but making progress toward registration. EPA can set tolerances for affected crops that are time-limited, usually for the season in which they are allowed.

The Section 18 emergency exemption loophole has been used in the past to skirt pesticide regulations meant to ensure health and safety and has resulted in the widespread application of inadequately reviewed, and often unnecessary hazardous substances. In some cases, exemptions have been granted each season, challenging the concept that there is an urgent, non-routine situation as “emergency” is defined under Section 18.

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

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

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

Integrated pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive are working alternatives that would be the most appropriate and long-term solution for battling resistant weeds and pests outbreaks that Section 18 requests aim to solve. For further information on these strategies, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic webpage.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity Press Release; OIG Report

Package language: “Lovingly handmade throughout the day (with amazingly natural ingredients)”

(Beyond Pesticides, September 26, 2018) Beyond Pesticides, GMO Free USA, and Organic Consumers Association filed a lawsuit against Pret A Manger restaurant chain for the deceptive marketing and sale of certain bread and other baked goods as “natural food,” after the products tested positive for glyphosate, a component of Roundup weedkiller. The lawsuit charges that Pret exploits consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay more for products marketed as ‘natural.’

“Consumers expect Pret’s food to be free of synthetic pesticides, including glyphosate. Glyphosate, patented as a chelator and an antibiotic, is linked to adverse health effects including cancer, infertility and non-alcoholic fatty liver and kidney diseases. Glyphosate shouldn’t be present in the food system at all, but a company that willfully misrepresents its products needs to be held accountable,” said Diana Reeves, executive director of GMO Free USA.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides said: “Consumers want truthful information on product ingredients, with labeling and advertising that is transparent about production practices and residues of toxic materials. Given the widespread use of pesticide-intensive practices, this lawsuit establishes the responsibility of purveyors of food products to know the origins of their product ingredients before making a ‘natural’ claim.”

Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association international director said: “Pret knows consumer perception is that food described as ‘natural’ is quantitatively better, because consumers believe ‘natural’ implies the absence of synthetic chemicals. We believe companies should not be allowed to mislead consumers in this way.”

The suit, filed under the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act by Richman Law Group, seeks to end Pret’s deceptive business practices by requiring full disclosure of glyphosate in their products and/or a reformulation of their products to be glyphosate-free.

Read the complaint.

GMO Free USA is a national 501(c)(3) nonprofit advocating for a clean and healthy food system and educating consumers about the hazards of genetically engineered organisms and synthetic pesticides. www.gmofreeusa.org

Beyond Pesticides is a D.C-based national grassroots nonprofit that works with allies in protecting public health and the environment to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides. www.beyondpesticides.org

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit consumer advocacy organization focused on food, agriculture and environmental issues. www.organicconsumers.org

Contacts:
Beyond Pesticides, Jay Feldman, 202.543.5450
GMO Free USA, Diana Reeves, 347.921.1466
Organic Consumers Association, Katherine Paul, 207.653.3090

(Beyond Pesticides, September 25, 2018) Last week the pioneering yogurt maker Stonyfield Organic announced a new initiative to convert public fields and parks to organic land management in collaboration with Beyond Pesticides, Nontoxic Neighborhoods, and natural land care experts Osborne Organics. The StonyFIELDS #Playfree initiative will work with 35 communities over the next several years to ensure fields and community spaces are free from the use of toxic synthetic pesticides. The project launches at a critical time, as evidence of the dangers glyphosate and other pesticides pose to children, pollinators, and the wider environment continues to mount.

“Communities across the country are more and more interested in managing their public spaces without toxic pesticides because they are not necessary to maintain beautiful landscapes,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “Moms, dads, and pet owners are asking for these changes to protect their loved ones, municipal landscapers are adopting new methods to manage turf without subjecting themselves or bystanders to toxic exposure, and local elected officials are seeking out ways to improve public health and increase their community’s commitment to environmental protection.”

“Over 26 million kids play on parks and fields, most of which are managed using a chemical cocktail of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, glyphosate being one of those commonly employed,” says Stonyfield co-founder and Chief Organic Optimist Gary Hirshberg.  “Unfortunately, the federal agencies in charge of protecting us from dangers like these are now being dismantled right before our eyes, so we feel the time is right to lend our voice to this critical issue and inspire everyone to become advocates and change agents for the health of their loved ones.”

The StonyFIELDS #Playfree initiative will kick off with a Field Day this Friday, September 29 in South Portland, ME’s Bug Light field. In 2016, South Portland passed an historic organic land care policy aimed at protecting residents from unnecessary pesticide exposure.’

Over the next year, Stonyfield Organics will work with the following communities:

• South Portland, ME
• Costa Mesa, CA
• Burbank, CA
• Tustin, CA
• Salt Lake City, UT
• Houston, TX
• North Miami, FL
• Hyattsville, MD
• Portsmouth, NH
• Dover, NH

Several of these cities have already passed pesticide reform policies or are on their way to transitioning turf sites, and Stonyfield’s support will provide extra seed funding and on-going technical support as they continue implementing their organic programs.

Stonyfield is also launching two donation programs for the second phase of the project – a community donation and grassroots donation – in order to assist other communities in making the switch to organic management. Ten communities will be chosen to receive $5,000 in cash to use towards the purchase of organic inputs and/or landscaping equipment needed for organic management, plus in-kind technical support and guidance from expert resources. Residents, town employees, or town elected officials can nominate their community to receive one of these donations, and those interested in applying can find application details here.

In addition, a grassroots donations program geared toward 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations has been established to help local advocates take their community organization to the next level. For this part of the program specifically, a total of $50,000 will be given out to 501 (c)(3) groups based on project proposals.  Interested applicants can find details on the grassroots donations here. Applications will be accepted now until February 22, 2019, and all selected applicants from both donation programs will be announced in April 2019.

Several of the most commonly used chemicals on playing fields are either proven or likely endocrine disruptors, which can interfere with the development of children’s immune, reproductive, and metabolic systems,” says Philip Landrigan, MD, MSc, Founding Director of the Children’s Environmental Health Center at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and author of the book Children and Environmental Toxins: What Everyone Needs to Know. “I applaud Stonyfield and its collaborators for this initiative and encourage all parents to get involved in their local communities.”

For information on the donation programs or to learn about specific community conversions, visit www.stonyfield.com/playfree. For additional information and resources to help you get toxic pesticide out of your community, visit Beyond Pesticides Tools for Change webpage or contact [email protected].

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

Source: Stonyfield Organic

Beyond Pesticides, September 24, 2018) In a move that critics fear may be a pretext for gutting federal agricultural research, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue has proposed overhauling two federal offices overseeing food and agriculture research and moving them out of the Washington, DC area. A plan announced in August to relocate one of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) top research office — the Economic Research Service — into the Office of the Secretary, a political branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is raising alarm from scientists. Concerned researchers see the move as a way to cut funding to important projects on climate change and nutrition, among others, consistent with other Administration moves to reduce input of scientists into public policy.

The plan by the Trump administration to overhaul two federal offices overseeing food and agriculture research, the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and move them out of Washington by the end of 2019 is being cited by leading agricultural scientists and economists as a ploy to stifle important federal research.

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to urge Agriculture Secretary Perdue to keep the research programs of USDA in place, and stop the cuts and reorganization.

The Trump administration has targeted ERS for severe funding cuts and says streamlining USDA’s operations would save taxpayer money and help the agency recruit and retain top staff, but the move will only serve to isolate the agency from key colleagues and resources concentrated in the capital. This will weaken ERS research by making it more difficult for agency economists to consult with other federal research offices, lawmakers, and federal policy groups. More troubling is that relocating ERS to the Office of the Secretary could compromise and politicize federal research responsible for nonpartisan food and agricultural economic analysis; an issue the office’s current placement was designed to prevent.

The August announcement noted that new locations have yet to be determined, and that ERS and NIFA may be co-located when their new homes are found. ERS and NIFA account for just over half of the $2.5 billion Congress budgeted for agricultural research in 2018. ERS employs 300 people in the D.C. region, according to USDA. NIFA, which funds competitive research grants at U.S. universities, employs a D.C. staff of roughly 400.

ERS research covers a range of issues, studying trends and emerging issues in agriculture, food, the environment, and rural America from crop yields and food prices to farm conservation practices, rural employment, and nutrition assistance. Key reports serve those who make or influence public policy decisions around farm and food, and include Congress, other federal agencies, and state and local governments. For instance, recent ERS findings have concluded that trade liberalization benefits U.S. farmers, despite the Trump administration contrary stance.

NIFA was established by the 2008 Farm Bill with a mission of finding innovative solutions to issues related to agriculture, the environment, and communities. Its goals include global food security, mitigating impacts of climate change, increasing agricultural production, while protecting natural resources, and combating childhood obesity by ensuring the availability of affordable, nutritious, and safe food.

Scott Swinton, PhD, an agricultural economist at Michigan State and the former president of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, said, “The administration is now doing by fiat what it could not persuade Congress to do. Its plan to relocate ERS employees away from Washington is likely to trigger widespread staff resignations.”

Tell your U.S. Representative and Senators to urge Agriculture Secretary Perdue to keep the research programs of USDA in place, and stop the cuts and reorganization.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2018) Monsanto, now an integrated unit of Bayer AG, is asking Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos to reverse the verdict, reduce the award, or grant a new trial for the company after a jury determined that a California groundskeeper contracted non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from spraying glyphosate for years. Dewayne Johnson, who maintained the grounds of a California Bay-area school district, was awarded $289 million by a jury, which found that Monsanto acted with “malice or oppression.” Mr. Johnson’s case was the first of its kind to go to trial – fast tracked based on the severity of his illness – but over 8,000 similar lawsuits are pending in U.S. courts.

Bayer’s Monsanto claims that the verdict does not reflect the scientific data. “While we are sympathetic to Mr. Johnson and his family, glyphosate is not responsible for his illness, and the verdict in this case should be reversed or set aside,” Bayer said in a September 18 statement.

While Bayer contends that glyphosate does not result in individual applicators contracting cancer, this view is at odds with a 2015 designation from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which determined the chemical is a probable carcinogen, with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based on laboratory studies. The company further says that IARC’s review process was flawed, and that regulatory agencies around the globe have designated glyphosate safe when used as directed. However, this claim ignores the inherent scientific deficiencies in the assessment process of these regulatory agencies.

While regulatory bodies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and European Food Safety Authority only look at the active ingredient in a pesticide formulation, IARC conducted a broader, more comprehensive review, analyzing studies on both active ingredients, and formulated glyphosate products such as Roundup. Further, the data analyzed by EPA and EFSA are not produced or conducted by these agencies or independent scientists, but instead performed by Bayer, Monsanto, and the chemical companies themselves.

Speaking to EFSA’s glyphosate evaluation, Chris Portier, PhD, who acted as an expert witness Mr. Johnson’s case explains, “Agencies need to write their own reviews and not rely upon reviews written by industry. . . . As I’ve pointed out to all of my students over the years, he who writes the first draft sets the tone of the paper. Allowing industry to write their own reviews is certainly likely to bias the evaluation.’”

Not only do regulatory agencies rely on industry data, as discovered during Mr. Johnson’s trial, they also worked to cover-up the dangers of glyphosate. Based on evidence presented to the court, the Judge permitted the jury to consider not only the scientific evidence, but that Monsanto knew full well about the dangers of its products, and continued attempts to influence scientific decision making in its favor, and market its products to unaware consumers.

Legal experts that spoke with Reuters indicate that the company’s appeal is a long shot. But Bayer appears to be digging in, saying in a statement to Successful Farming that it “stands behind these products and will vigorously defend them.” It is no wonder, given that Monsanto’s market share for glyphosate represented a $15 billion annual revenue stream for the company. But since the verdict, shares of Bayer have dropped by over 20%, from $111 on August 9 to $85 on September 20. “[Bayer CEO] Werner Baumann must ask himself if Bayer took too lightly the lawsuits against Monsanto,” said Winfried Mathes, a corporate expert from Bayer shareholder Deka Investment, to the Wall Street Journal.

For a comprehensive source of information about Dewayne Johnson’s court case, including documents, exhibits, and expert presentations, see Beyond Pesticide previous Daily News. And for more information about the dangers of glyphosate products, see Beyond Pesticides fact sheet and article in our Pesticides and You newsletter, Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, September 20, 2018) Babies exposed to higher levels of organochlorine compounds in the womb go on to have worse lung function in childhood, according to new research presented at the European Respiratory Society International Congress. Previous studies have found a link between low lung function in early adulthood and respiratory, cardiovascular, and metabolic issues in later life. Beyond Pesticides has covered in its Daily News studies on a range of adverse effects, including autism in children, caused by organochlorine pesticide exposure, which bioaccumulates in the environment and the human body.

Organochlorine compounds, which include the pesticide DDT, as well as electrical insulators and other industrial products, are now banned in most parts of the world. However, because they degrade very slowly, they are still present in the environment and in foods. Previous research has suggests links between exposure to these chemicals in the womb and parents reporting childhood respiratory diseases such as wheezing, asthma, and chest infections. The new study is the first to show a link with objective measures of lung strength and capacity in relation to low-level exposure to these chemicals. Organochlorine compounds can disrupt the hormone system and have been linked to a wide range of conditions including cardiovascular disorders, cancers, and low birth weight babies. The main source of exposure is through food but fetuses and newborns can be exposed via the placenta and breastfeeding.

The study, Prenatal exposure to organochlorine compounds and lung function until early adulthood, was presented by Maribel Casas, PhD, assistant research professor at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal). Dr Casas explained: “We already have evidence that exposure to environmental chemicals including organochlorine compounds can have an impact on children’s health. Even though this group of chemicals were banned in the 1970s, low but detectable levels are still present in pregnant women and in children. That means current populations and future generations are still exposed to these compounds.”

Dr. Casas and her colleagues studied 1,308 babies who were born in the Valencia, Gipuzkoa, and Sabadell regions of Spain between 2004 and 2008. They measured the levels of seven different organochlorine compounds in the pregnant mother’s blood or in blood taken from the umbilical cord. As the children grew older, they were asked to take part in tests to measure their lung function at the age of four years, and again at seven years. Pediatric pulmonologists using a spirometer measured the children’s lung volume and checked for any signs of obstruction in the airways.

In particular, the researchers found that levels of DDE – a chemical formed when DDT breaks down – were linked with poorer lung function in children at both four and seven years old. For example, exposure to maternal concentrations of DDE was associated with a 50-millilitre reduction in how much air children could blow out in one second.

“A reduction of this size in the amount of air a child can blow out would not be considered clinically relevant for a healthy child, but these smaller changes are highly relevant at population level and can be important in children with respiratory conditions,” Dr Casas said. “To reduce exposure to these chemicals, women of reproductive age can try to moderate consumption of foods with high levels of organochlorine compounds, such as fatty meats and oily fish. We know that this group of chemicals can interfere with the body’s hormone system and we also know that hormone receptors play an important role in fetal development of the lungs, so this could be the mechanism for a link.”

The researchers hope to study the impact of exposure to organochlorine compounds in the womb on older children and teenagers to understand whether this effect persists in the longer term.

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

Source:   European Respiratory Society Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, September 19, 2018) “‘Don’t get pregnant at George Air Force Base’” was the advice imparted from one female Air Force member to another in 1975 at that base, located 100+ miles north of San Diego and used as an active military site from 1941–1992. From the start of their service at George AFB, both parties to this conversation came to be familiar with the shared horror stories of repeated infections, vaginal bleeding, ovarian cysts, uterine tumors, birth defects, and miscarriages among female Air Force members at the site. Many women who served at George AFB in the 1970s, ‘80s, and ‘90s suffered, but did not know what was causing, such health issues, which were frequent enough that even base doctors would sometimes privately warn women off of getting pregnant while serving there.

Among the many contaminants found at George AFB and other military sites are organochlorine-based pesticides (OCPs), such as DDT, dieldrin/aldrin, heptachlor, lindane, endrin, chlordane, mirex, toxaphene, hexachlorobenzene, chlordane, and others. (A comprehensive list of OCPs is available here.) Most of these compounds were used on military bases for decades for vegetation control, as building pesticides or fumigants, or for personal pesticide treatments for lice and scabies, and to protect from mosquitoes. Use of all but DDT has been banned or severely restricted in most countries because of the pesticides’ toxicity; despite that, DDT is still occasionally used to combat malaria in some countries.

When George AFB was designated as an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site in 1990, women who had served there learned that they’d been exposed to a variety of harmful chemicals. The base’s water supply and soils were contaminated with jet fuel and solvents, such as trichloroethylene, a human carcinogen. In addition, the barracks in which they lived had been treated with toxic pesticides, and the workers were exposed to radiation while working on F-4 phantom fighter jets. Fast forward to nearly three decades later: in March 2018, Department of Defense monitoring wells (established to test for contaminants) showed that George AFB water sources, along with those of hundreds of other military locations, are contaminated with perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and/or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

These compounds are commonly used in the manufacture of surfactants and polymers, and are especially concentrated in the foam formulations used to douse aircraft fires. At George AFB, PFOS and PFOA levels were between 87 and 5,396ppt (parts per trillion), well beyond the EPA’s “recommended maximum” level of 70ppt. Exposure to these chemicals can cause maladies in the reproductive, hepatic, and immunological  systems, as well as problems with fetal and neonatal development and thyroid function; they can also cause cancers.

With this recent revelation, communities located near military bases — Patrick AFB in Florida, Wurtsmith AFB in Michigan, and Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio among them — are testing water and tracking cancer reports from those who lived on or near the sites. In February, Dayton, Ohio government told residents that, “The sampling data strongly indicates that the contamination is the direct result of activities occurring on the Air Force base.”

The U.S. military’s history with environmental contamination and resulting health debacles is hardly news — it has repeatedly been called the world’s biggest polluter, and recent decades have witnessed waves of veterans reporting various health impacts. See Beyond Pesticides’ recent coverage of the massive Agent Orange issue, and its coverage, a decade ago, of Gulf War illness, a condition caused by exposure to toxic chemicals, including pesticides. In 2011, a study showed that among the contributing exposures for those with Gulf War Syndrome was that to lindane, an organochlorine pesticide (see below). Environmentally problematic sites in the U.S. include the 36 with water supplies poisoned by PFOS and PFOA, the more than 130 on the EPA list of Superfund sites, and the many that produce hazardous wastes and/or have dumped, intentionally or by accident, pollutants into their environment. Nearly three-quarters of Superfund sites are abandoned military sites that otherwise support military needs, not counting the military bases themselves. U.S. Representative John Dingell (retired) said, in 2014, that, “Almost every military site in this country is seriously contaminated.”

OCPs are toxic to people, very toxic to most aquatic life, and persistent in the environment once introduced; they accumulate in the fatty tissues of humans, plants, and animals, and have short- and long-term health impacts even at very low levels of exposure. Those impacts vary with the particular compound and across a significant range, and can include: neurotoxic, reproductive, immunological, anemic, tumorogenic, dermal, gastrointestinal, motor, hepatic, renal, and endocrine-disruptive effects, as well as cancers.  At least three organochlorine compounds — DDT, kepone, and toxaphene — are classified by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) as “Reasonably anticipated to be . . . human carcinogen[s].”

The website GeorgeAFB.info reports that, “In 2002, aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, and lindane were detected in the surface soil at the George AFB Family Housing. In 2005 the Air Force advised the City of Victorville that the levels of pesticides detected at the Base Family Housing ‘could present a danger to human health if soils are inhaled, ingested, or contacted by skin.’ On 1 October 2007, the levels of chlordane and other organochlorine pesticides’ (‘OCPs’) and their breakdown products was so high that the Air Force banned the property and housing for residential use. As of 5/22/2017, the Air Force has failed to notify the thousands of former tenants and building occupants of their possible toxic exposure.”

Though it has made progress, it would appear that the military still faces a huge amount of remediation and compensation, for damage to both the environment and to people’s health. More information on the relationship between pesticides and health impacts can be found at Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database.

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

Source: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/06/20/why-women-were-told-dont-get-pregnant-at-george-air-force-base/

(Beyond Pesticides, September 18, 2018) While climate change campaigners have long warned of increased pest pressure as a result of a warming planet, new research published in Science has begun to envisage the true extent of this expanding crisis for agriculture and crop yields. An Earth warmed by 2 degrees Celsius will see significant increases in insect metabolism and population growth, increasing global food scarcity. The study underlines the need to move towards more sustainable agricultural models that can better handle pests and other stressors brought about by climate change.

Scientists focused their models on the three staple crops that comprise over 40% of calories consumed worldwide – rice, corn, and wheat. Pest impacts were considered for a variety of scenarios, including a world warmed by 2 °C from Earth’s current global mean surface temperature. The Paris Climate Accords aims to limit warming to 1.5 °C, but with uncertainty around the U.S. pulling out of the voluntary agreement, the model produced by researchers represents a very possible scenario.

The results paint a grim picture for global food security and nutrition, with pest-related losses expected to increase by 19% for rice, 31% for corn, and 46% for wheat. The trajectory boarders on Malthusian, as these pest-related losses will come as the Food and Agriculture Organization predicts global food demand will need to rise 70% from 2007 levels by the year 2050.

“For many, many people in the world there is already a shortage of food, so it is not like we can afford to spare [more],” said study lead Prof Curtis Deutsch at the University of Washington to the Guardian. “A lot of people in the world, the most vulnerable, can’t afford to give up anything.”

Warmer temperatures act to speed up the metabolisms of most pests, increasing their need to eat. At the same time, the population growth of pests in most areas of the world is also expected to increase lock-step with warmer temperatures. The exception is tropical regions, where temperature is already ideal for pest population growth. While climate change will reverse this trend, tamping down on the pest pressure for most rice crops, further warming in subtropical areas is expected to intensify pest pressure there as temperatures reach optimal levels.

The study didn’t take into account the potential for explosive pest outbreaks, the ability of pests to spread crop diseases, or the interplay between specific pests and each crop, which could further exacerbate the issue. Even more concerning were the worst-case climate change scenarios modeled by researchers. In a world that experiences 4 °C warming, pest pressure for these three crops could increase by 40-100%, according to the models.

This data all point to an urgent need to transform agriculture. While researchers indicate that more crop rotation is necessary, farmers are likely to respond by increasing their use of toxic pesticides. However, it is clear that we cannnot continue down a path reliant on petroleum-based pesticides and fertilizers in order to feed the future world.

Organic agriculture represents a viable path forward that can successfully address stressors brought about by a warming climate and increased pest pressure. This method of farming can help sequester carbon, improve human health, boost local economies, and is essential to a sustainable future. Pests are addressed not through outside inputs, but by fostering natural, on-farm diversity of pest predators.

For more information on why organic is the right choice for the future of farming, see Beyond Pesticides’ Why Organic webpage. And take action to ensure that organic remains a healthy, sustainable, and resilient crop production system by taking action to comment to the National Organic Standards Board by October 4^th, 2018.

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

Source: The Guardian, Science

(Beyond Pesticides, September 17, 2018) The Fall 2018 NOSB meeting dates have been announced and public comments are due by October 4, 2018. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label. Written comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov  until 11:59 pm ET October 4, 2018. Reservations for in-person and webinar comments close at the same time.

The proposals of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as a part of its ongoing review of practices and materials, are published for public comment. On our Keeping Organic Strong page, Beyond Pesticides will be providing the public with a listing and analysis of the issues under consideration of the Board when it meets in Saint Paul, MN on October 24 – 26, 2018. You can view USDA’s announcement of the NOSB’s meeting and proposals here.

Issues before the NOSB include materials allowed in organic production as well as some policy issues. Materials are either the subject of petitions or the subject of sunset review (concerning whether to be allowed for another 5 years). To be allowed, materials must have evidence summarized in the proposals that they meet the OFPA requirements of essentiality, no adverse effects on humans and the environment, and compatibility with organic practices.

Major issues before the NOSB at the Fall 2018 meeting include:

• Natamycin is an antimicrobial proposed for post-harvest use on organic food crops. It is used in medicine to treat a number of diseases. Natamycin is produced by fermentation, and the NOSB may classify it as a natural material, which would allow its use without restriction. The NOSB should list natamycin on Sections 602 and 604, to prohibit its use in organic crop and livestock production, where use would promote resistance to this medically valuable antimicrobial medication. See Beyond Pesticides draft comments.
• Allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) is proposed as a crop fumigant. It would be difficult to find a practice less compatible with organic production than soil fumigation with a “broad-spectrum antimicrobial compound that effectively kills both plant pathogens and beneficial soil microorganisms.” Organic production uses practices that feed soil organisms who feed crop plants. It creates healthy soil food webs. Using a toxic chemical to wipe out soil biology is the antithesis of organic practices. The petition for AITC should be rejected because it is hazardous, not essential for organic production, and incompatible with organic practices. See Beyond Pesticides draft comments.
• Silver Dihydrogen Citrate (SDC) is an antimicrobial with important medical uses that is proposed for use in handling produce and poultry carcasses. Although the proposed annotation eliminates the nanosilver form, SDC poses health and environmental risks –particularly the risk of increasing resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials. The petition for SDC must be denied to protect the effectiveness of remaining antimicrobial medications. See Beyond Pesticides draft comments.

Written comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov  until 11:59 pm ET October 4, 2018.

Not sure how to use our suggested language to comment? Follow these simple steps:

1. Select the text in our comments (place your cursor before the first word in the text, then press and hold down the left mouse button and, without releasing the button, move the cursor to the end of the comments).
2. Copy the selected text by selecting the Ctrl and C keys simultaneously.
3. Click on this link to open a new tab and in that tab, place your cursor in the “Comment” box.
4. Paste the comments you copied by selecting the Ctrl and V keys simultaneously.
5. Personalize your comments before entering your contact information and selecting “Continue”.

More information will be available soon on Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage to learn more about these and other substantive issues, and to provide a unique public comment to the NOSB.

Thank you for helping to protect and uphold organic integrity!

Please take action now!

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2018) A lawsuit first filed nearly a decade ago over dioxin contamination released from the storage of chemical treated utility poles was settled this week in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge Richard Seeborg signed the agreement between California utility company Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and the Ecological Rights Foundation (ERF), which commits PG&E to identifying storage yards holding treated poles, and implementing technologies that reduce dioxin levels through the year 2026. The utility poles of concern were treated with the chemical pentachlorophenol, which is regulated as a pesticide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and is known to produce dioxin as a byproduct of its manufacture.

“Dioxins are among the most toxic chemicals known to science,” noted ERF attorney Fredric Evenson to KPIX 5.  “This has been a hard-fought legal battle, but in the end PG&E now appears to understand that dioxin has no business in our bay, and will now take meaningful action to benefit San Francisco Bay’s wildlife and residents who eat locally caught seafood.”

As part of the settlement, PG&E is not required to admit any wrongdoing. “Because environmental stewardship is a guiding principle at PG&E, we are pleased to have reached an agreement with the Ecological Rights Foundation to perform environmental testing on new storm water treatment methods of PG&E’s treated wood pole storage areas,” the utility said in a statement received by KPIX 5. “Northern California waterways may benefit from any enhancements to existing power pole storage practices and storm water treatment technologies PG&E adopts as a result of the testing,” the company said.

The original lawsuit was brought against PG&E under the Clean Water Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. After being dismissed in 2015, it was appealed to the 9^th US Circuit Court and remanded back to the lower court after the judges determined ERF had standing to sue.

ERF pointed to 31 locations in central California where utility poles coated in pentachlorophenol were stored. Now, PG&E will need to implement measures to reduce to flow of dioxin into local waterways. The company has leeway in its approach, but options such as indoor storage, stormwater treatment upgrades are being considered.

PG&E could reduce dioxin levels by eliminating entirely its use of pentachlorophenol and wood-based utility poles, and opting instead for steel or cement poles.

Beyond Pesticides has long sounded the alarm against the use of hazardous wood preservatives for utility poles, as these chemicals – creosote, pentachlorophenol, and copper chromium arsenate – represent the most toxic pesticides currently allowed by EPA. A 1997 report Poison Poles, and 1999 follow-up Pole Pollution highlighted an issue that has been dismissed by EPA.

Pentachlorophenol was restricted from all uses except utility poles in 2004. Prior to that, the chemical was allowed for use in a range of wood products, even children’s playground equipment. In 2015, the Stockholm Convention, which provides a framework to moving persistent organic pollutants out of commerce, banned the use of the chemical as a result of human and environmental health impacts.  However, the United States is not a signatory to the Stockholm Convention and has taken no further action to restrict the use of the chemical at the federal level.

Homeowners and individuals should avoid chemically-treated wood for home improvement projects, particularly in garden beds. Redwood, cedar, and cypress are woods naturally resistant to insects and rot, and other options include stone, metal, recycled plastic and wood-lumber plastic.

For more information on the toxicity of poison poles and alternatives to their use, see Beyond Pesticides most recent article on the issue, “Beyond Poison Poles.”

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

Source: KPIX 5

(Beyond Pesticides, September 13, 2018) House proposal would wipe out communities’ power to restrict pesticides. In an effort to protect the rights of communities nationwide, over 60 local officials from across the country sent a letter to Congress today opposing a farm bill provision that takes away local governments’ authority to restrict hazardous pesticides. The signatories are urging the farm bill conference committee to reject a “poison pill” rider that will preempt local governments, making the entire legislation unacceptable.

Section 9101 of the House version of the farm bill will institute federal preemption of local pesticide policies, a move that will overturn a decades-old Supreme Court decision and prevent communities from adopting protective laws that meet the needs of their residents or unique local environment.

The letter urges the conference committee to reach an agreement on a final 2018 farm bill that does not include this rider. It was signed by over 60 local officials in 39 communities from 15 different states, ranging from North Miami, FL to South Euclid, OH, West Hollywood, CA and Maui, HI. The County Council of Montgomery County, MD, which passed a landmark policy on toxic pesticides, also sent a letter to the farm bill conference committee.

“The pesticide industry’s attempts to stymie a national grassroots movement against their toxic products is only serving to elevate the voices of local leaders that have seen their communities successfully transition to safer land care practices, in many cases organic land management,” said Drew Toher, Community Resource and Policy Director with Beyond Pesticides. “The farm bill’s preemption provision represents an unacceptable federal overreach into community parks, playing fields, and natural spaces.”

Mayor Ethan Strimling of Portland, ME, said, “At a time when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has failed to act, and follow sound science on toxic pesticides like bee-killing neonicotinoids or the probable carcinogen glyphosate, it is critically important that local governments retain the right to protect their citizens and environment.”

 “The Farm Bill should not be a tool for stripping city and county officials of their ability to protect their citizens from pesticides,” said Jason Davidson, Friends of the Earth’s Food and Agriculture Campaign Associate.

 “The Farm Bill should be supporting healthy farming and rural communities, not undermining local control,” said Kristin Schafer, Executive Director of Pesticide Action Network.

Quotes from local officials:

Mayor Ethan Strimling of Portland, ME: “At a time when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has failed to act, and follow sound science on toxic pesticides like bee-killing neonicotinoids or the probable carcinogen glyphosate, it is critically important that local governments retain the right to protect their citizens and environment. The City of Portland deliberately undertook a years-long process, involving considerable debate between a range of stakeholders, before passing legislation to restrict toxic pesticides in favor of organic land care. Removing the rights of communities in Maine and elsewhere to have the same robust debate on this important topic doesn’t represent who we are as a nation.”

City Council President Ben Stuckart of Spokane, Washington: “As someone who has worked on local food issues for the past 6 years it is very important that innovative cities continue to have the ability to lead our federal government when they refuse to act. That is how progress is being made across the country. I have dealt with the federal government over the last 6 years and if you want to get something done you do it locally, not rely on the bureaucracy in Washington, DC.  We will never make progress if that is what our options are. We have done a horrible job as a society taking care of our natural environment.  We must be allowed the option to deal with these issues locally if the Federal government refuses to act.”

Mayor Scott Zerby of the Shorewood, MN: “The City of Shorewood passed an ordinance banning city use of pesticides containing ingredients proven harmful to pollinators by University of Minnesota researchers and other scientists around the country. Pollinators are the very foundation of much of our food supply and the elimination of these products has not changed the beauty or functionality of our city. This issue was raised by our citizens and it should be their right to manage local resources as they believe right if does not deny public safety or damage property.   Federal guidelines should remain that and not mandates.   We find the alternative products to satisfy the public need as well as what has been used in the past.  We continue to support the approach that it is better to be cautious when managing precious environmental resource like our beneficial pollinators.”

Recreation and Parks Commission Chairperson Chip Osborne of Marblehead, MA: “Marblehead, MA debated the issue of pesticide use on public property 18 years ago. A local policy by the Board of Health has been in place since 2001 and strengthened to a Health Regulation in 2005. This was an important discussion that focused upon synthetic pesticides and how they were regulated by the US EPA. There was not enough confidence in the regulatory system to ensure that the public was in little or no danger from the use of these materials, particularly where children play. It is my firm belief, both as an elected public official and a private homeowner that a local jurisdiction should have the right and the ability to restrict the use of pesticides within the community both on public and private property. I do not believe that the federal government should step in and regulate home rule. The federal government should not supersede states’ rights and ultimately the final right should rest with the local jurisdiction.”

TAKE ACTION:
If a Democratic Senator(s) represents you in the U.S. Senate, click here to let the Senator know that you want this provision preempting the rights of local governments kept out of the Farm Bill.

If your Democratic U.S. Representative is not on the letter from 105 members to the Farm Bill conference committee (click here to see letter), please reach out and tell them that you want them to sign-on the letter or write their own letter opposing preemption. Click here to find your Representative and then click on the envelope under his/her picture to send the following message: Please sign on to Rep. Donald McEachin’s letter to the Farm Bill conference committee, urging that Sec. 9101 in the GOP Farm Bill be rejected and the right of local governments to protect children’s and environmental health be preserved.

Contacts:
Drew Toher, community resource and policy director, Beyond Pesticides, 202-543-5450, [email protected]
Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides,202-255-4296, [email protected]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 12, 2018) The city of Amsterdam, Netherlands is leading global bee recovery efforts by increasing its diversity of wild pollinator species, according to reporting and an analysis by NBC News. A new map published by the city identified 21 bee species not found in an earlier 1998 survey recorded by Amsterdam officials. The increase has been attributed to a range of pollinator-protective measures, including a ban on bee-toxic pesticides and the planting of native flowers, prioritized by the city government since the turn of the century. Local communities throughout the world can look to Amsterdam for policies and practices that will safeguard their own unique pollinator populations.

The NBC News report notes several initiatives undertaken by the Amsterdam government. Many of these measures come out of a $38.5 million fund aimed at broadly improving environmental sustainability. “Insects are very important because they’re the start of the food chain,” said Geert Timmermans, an Amsterdam ecologist to NBC News. “When it goes well with the insects, it also goes well with the birds and mammals.”

Insect and bee hotels are often installed in conjunction with the development of green roofs, which are encouraged for all new buildings. And parks and other public areas have undergone conversions that have increased the number of native flowering plants available for pollinators. “Our strategy is to when we design a park, we use native species but also the species that give a lot of flowering and fruit for (bees),” noted  Mr. Timmermans.

Amsterdam residents can also request that the city remove a 16 inch strip of pavement in front of their property in order to plant flowers, vines, or other vegetation. “(Citizens) acknowledge the importance of the natural environment. It’s part of the culture,” Mr. Timmermans said to NBC News.

While the EU recently made indefinite a ban on bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides in agriculture, urban spaces have been singled out for the continued risk to pollinators posed by the lawn and garden use of these chemicals.  Amsterdam appears to have successfully made up the difference, banning the use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides on public city property, and encouraging residents and businesses to eliminate their use through brochures and informational pamphlets.  Neonicotinoids have been implicated in the decline of wild and managed pollinators, leading governments, both large and small, to impose restrictions on their use.

With a 2017 study published in PLOS, showing wild lands in Europe losing 75% of flying insect biomass over the last three decades, Amsterdam represents a bright spot that can be replicated in other cities and towns in order for pollinator populations to remain viable on the whole. Even minor efforts can make a difference. Incorporating clover into a lawn is a great example of a way to add pollinator habitat, as studies find that mixed grass-clover lawns can support diverse pollinator populations.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not taken significant action to protect pollinators, there is a growing trend within U.S. states and communities to enact measures similar to those in Amsterdam. The states of Maryland and Connecticut have restricted neonicotinoids for consumer uses, and adopted other pollinator friendly habitat policies. The Map of US Pesticide Reform Policies highlights over 40 different local communities that have banned or restricted the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. Many of these policies include a comprehensive approach to improve habitat and plant for native vegetation.

Help defend pollinator protective policies from a federal attempt to block them in the 2018 farm bill. Tell your Senators to stand up for local rights in the farm bill by eliminating the inclusion of a poison pill rider that would preempt local communities in the final farm bill. For more information on the plight of pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage.

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

Source: NBC News

(Beyond Pesticides, September 11, 2018) A report released this summer by the nonprofit group The Cornucopia Institute helps consumers avoid ‘factory farmed’ dairy products in light of disturbing revelations uncovered in a 2017 Washington Post investigation of major organic brands. The report, The Industrialization of Organic Dairy, traces the broken promises of many major dairy companies and provides a scorecard enabling consumers to review brands for their overall sustainability and adherence to truly organic standards.

“With the USDA’s failure to protect ethical industry participants and consumers from outright fraud, using our Organic Dairy Scorecard is a way for organic stakeholders to take the law into their own hands,” said Mark A. Kastel, codirector and senior farm policy analyst of Cornucopia, on the group’s website. “In every market and product category, consumers can vote in front of the dairy case to economically support authentic organic farmers while simultaneously protecting their families.”

The Washington Post’s 2017 report found that Aurora Organic Dairy, a major milk supplier for big box retailers like Walmart and Safeway, is producing milk that was less nutrient dense compared to small-scale organic family farms. Information on nutritional deficits in this milk was preceded by an earlier 2014 Cornucopia Institute report featuring aerial photographs of industrial confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs, or factory farms). While certified organic, the farms in the photos appeared indistinguishable from conventional factory farming operations, with some ‘organic’ dairies holding 10,000-20,000 cattle. At the time, Aurora Dairy, which was photographed as part of 2014 report, told reporters, “A single photo doesn’t really tell us anything about a farm and its practices.” The subsequent Washington Post report found that the living conditions indicated by the photos did result in cows producing nutritionally deficient milk.

Cornucopia notes that while these investigative reports finally brought USDA interest in these unethical practices during the years of the Obama administration, regulators gave the dairy every opportunity to correct any issues by making an appointment before reviewing the farm’s practices. “Whoever heard of a law enforcement agency calling up a suspected meth lab and setting up a mutually convenient appointment to carry out a search?” said Francis Thicke, a longtime certified organic dairy farmer from Fairfield, Iowa and a former Obama-era appointee to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), in a Cornucopia Institute press release.

The group’s scorecard works off of a point system addressing everything from a brand’s ownership structure, to milk supplier, how often cows are milked, the health and longevity of a farm’s cattle, whether cows are grass fed, antibiotic and hormone usage, and more. These data are distilled into a ranking between 0 to 5 ‘cows’, with 5 cows being top-rated as ‘Beyond Organic’ and 0 cows indicating no response to the organization’s questionnaire and the likelihood of poor practices. While many of the 5-cow brands are produced by small-scale family farms, some nationwide dairy producers, such as Maple Hill Creamery, made the list. Notably, some larger brands, such as Organic Valley, Liberte, Annie’s HomeGrown, and Helios Kefir, all scored 4 cows. In general, the organization warned individuals against purchasing store branded products such as Trader Joe’s store-brand organic milk. The organization notes, “Even though none of the one cow rated brands responded to our survey request, we were able to determine that these brands were, at the time of our research, buying some or all of their organic milk from factory-farm sources.”

Consumers are encouraged to review the scorecard for their current dairy purchases and consider the ability to vote with your food dollars by supporting more ethical, sustainable, and transparent brands.  For more information on why it is so important to not only protect, but strengthen the organic label, see Beyond Pesticides Keeping Organic Strong webpage.

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

Source: The Cornucopia Institute

(Beyond Pesticides, September 10 2019) Does your community spray toxic pesticides for mosquitoes? In a well-intentioned but ill-informed attempt to prevent mosquito-borne illness such as West Nile virus, many communities spray insecticides (adulticides) designed to kill flying mosquitoes. If your community is one of these, then your public officials need to know that there is a better, more-effective, way to prevent mosquito breeding.

Tell your public officials to stop spraying pesticides and adopt a mosquito management plan that protects public health and the environment.

The problem with mosquito pesticides. Two classes of insecticides are favored by mosquito spray programs –organophosphates and synthetic pyrethroids. In order to better target flying mosquitoes, adulticides are generally applied as ultra-low-volume (ULV) formulations that will float in the air longer than usual.

Organophosphates, which include malathion (Fyfanon), naled (Dibrom), and chlorpyrifos (Mosquitomist), are highly toxic pesticides that affect the central nervous, cardiovascular, and respiratory systems. Symptoms of poisoning in humans include: numbness, tingling sensations, headache, dizziness, tremors, nausea, abdominal cramps, sweating, incoordination, blurred vision, difficulty breathing, slow heartbeat, loss of consciousness, incontinence, convulsions, and death. Some organophosphates have been linked to birth defects and cancer. Breakdown times range from a few days to several months, depending on conditions.

Synthetic pyrethroids, which include resmethrin (Scourge), sumithrin (Anvil), and permethrin are adulticides patterned after pyrethrum (an insecticide derived from chrysanthemum plants), that have been chemically engineered to have greater toxicity and longer breakdown times. Almost all synthetic pyrethroid mosquito products use synergists like piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which increases potency and compromises the body’s ability to detoxify the pesticide. PBO causes a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system.Symptoms of synthetic pyrethroid poisoning include: dermatitis and asthma-like reactions, eye and skin irritation, and flu-like symptoms. Synthetic pyrethroids are endocrine disruptors and have been linked to breast and prostate cancer. People with asthma and pollen allergies should be especially cautious. Exposure has resulted in deaths from respiratory failure. Breakdown times range from a few hours to several months.

Mosquito spraying also hurts the environment. Naled, an organophosphate commonly used for mosquito control, affects a variety of non-target animals, including fish, insects, aquatic invertebrates, and honey bees. Naled is moderately acutely toxic to mammals, moderately to very highly toxic to freshwater fish and birds, highly toxic to honey bees, and very highly toxic to freshwater aquatic invertebrates, and estuarine fish and invertebrates. Elevated mortality rates among honey bees have been documented after nighttime aerial ULV applications of naled. Average yield of honey per hive is significantly lower in exposed hives.

Synthetic pyrethroids are highly toxic to fish and honey bees, even in low doses. Beneficial insects, including mosquito predators like dragonflies, will be killed by synthetic pyrethroids and organophosphates.

In addition to the dangers, adulticiding is usually the least effective mosquito control method.

Preventing the problem. Beyond Pesticides offers resources for managing mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease without the use of toxic pesticides. A better mosquito management plan protects public health and the environment. There are steps that can be taken to eliminate breeding sites around homes and buildings, and throughout the community. For example:

• Clean up standing water on residential property.
• Get rid of unnecessary debris, such as old tires, on residential and commercial property.
• At least twice a week, empty water from toys, buckets, birdbaths, swimming pool covers, and any other areas where water can collect.
• Drill holes in swing tires, and in the bottoms of recycling bins and other outside containers.
• Clean out rain gutters and make sure they drain properly.
• Turn garbage can covers right side up.
• Utilize safe repellents and other methods to protect against mosquito bites.
• Establish community-wide public awareness campaigns.

Local public policy is key to long-term solutions. Outbreaks of disease-carrying mosquitoes often result from habitat disturbance, such as deforestation, impairing wetlands, and spraying insecticides. Restoring the health of ecosystems helps keep mosquitoes under control. Native minnows, for example, can provide effective control of mosquito larvae breeding in standing water.

Tell your public officials to stop spraying pesticides and adopt a mosquito management plan that protects public health and the environment.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2018) As the marijuana industry gears up for exploding markets created by the increasing number of states that permit medical and/or recreational cannabis use, the quality of marijuana products is emerging as an important issue for patients and consumers. Beyond Pesticides identified this concern back in the winter of 2014–2015, and pointed to the importance of organic production practices for the emerging industry.

As of July 1, California’s mandated testing of cannabis became effective, and initial results are in. New Frontier Data CEO Giadha Aguirre de Carcer is pointing to those results as a threat to the medicinal cannabis market. She notes that 84% of 2016 product batches tested were found to harbor pesticide residue; and that in the recent California round of assays, 20% failed established standards due to contamination from pesticides, bacteria, or processing chemicals, and in some cases, inaccurate labeling.

Ms. de Carcer, speaking to attendees at the Benzinga Cannabis Capital Conference in Toronto recently, said that cannabis producers must reduce the pesticide contamination in their products, at the very least because of consumer concerns that will translate to the marketplace. At that conference, she said, “Those are troublesome figures. . . . When we talk about people taking cannabis for medicinal use, we probably should do something about that.” Beyond the health implications of toxically tainted marijuana products, consumer concerns about purity of those products will no doubt affect the success of the developing industry, which Ms. de Carcer predicts will be a $20 billion market by 2025.

The risks of pesticide contamination of cannabis include: exposure from inhalation, ingestion, or absorption of pesticide residues on the crop, exposure to workers cultivating the plant, environmental contamination, and impacts on wildlife. Such risks are especially unnerving for those patients using cannabis products medicinally, because their health is already compromised. As Mariellen Jurkovich, owner of the Humbolt Patient Resources Center in Arcata, California, has said, “If you are buying [just] any cannabis . . . you are risking your health,” Jurkovich said. “You are risking a chance that these things could be filled with very toxic chemicals.” The sensical option for human and environmental health is for this industry to choose organic production as its standard.

Meanwhile, the regulatory landscape for pesticide use in cannabis production is relatively straightforward since cannabis is classified as a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance by the U.S. government. At the federal level there is a fundamental legal issue, as Beyond Pesticides has identified: “Because cannabis is not considered an agricultural crop under federal law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not evaluated the safety of any pesticide on cannabis plants. EPA has established no restrictions for pesticides used in cannabis production, no tolerances, nor any exemptions from tolerances for allowable pesticide residues on cannabis. As a result, EPA-permitted pesticide labels do not contain allowances for pesticide use in cannabis production. Beyond Pesticides maintains that because of the federal status of cannabis (as a Schedule 1 illegal drug), EPA cannot legally register pesticides for use in the production of the crop. Therefore . . . pesticide use on cannabis is illegal. . . . [Further,] several states have codified this understanding by adopting policies that prohibit all federally registered pesticides. Other states have taken the position that state policy is unnecessary, since EPA has not registered any pesticides for cannabis production and registered pesticide use is illegal.”

All of that said, Beyond Pesticides also noted in its Winter 2014–2015 issue of its journal, Pesticides and You, that EPA has acted to muddy the waters: when some states asked for clarification and guidance on the matter, the agency said that although cannabis does not fit into any general category (e.g., herb, spice, or vegetable), “it may be legally used on marijuana under certain general types of crops/sites when there is an exemption from tolerance;” tolerance is the standard set by EPA for allowable pesticide residue in food. In the wake of that, some states deemed it acceptable for producers to use broad-spectrum herbicides and fumigants outdoors (as long as the pesticide label does not specify the food crop to be planted after the application). Subsequent to that development, Beyond Pesticides began to evaluate use and exposure issues associated with pre-planting uses on soil, whereby plants can take up the toxic compounds; these issues have generally been ignored by EPA and the states.

The lack of clear federal regulation has resulted in state regulations that are, at best, a patchwork of rules providing inconsistent, and often inadequate, protection for consumers and the environment. (See a snapshot of the status of regulations at the state level as of 2015.) Absent federal review (because of the classification of cannabis as a narcotic under federal law), any state permitting of a pesticide not evaluated for its potential health impacts concerns health advocates. A few states (Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia have adopted regulations that focus on less-toxic approaches to cannabis cultivation, with some focus on ensuring growing practices that avoid or prohibit the use of pesticides. Critically, the federal “limbo” provides an important opportunity for states to incentivize this developing industry to anchor its production practices — and perhaps its identity — in protocols that do not rely on toxic pesticides.

Somewhat ironically, in July of 2017, EPA issued a notice of intent to disapprove California’s planned registration of four pesticides for cannabis production. Although reports at the time suggested that EPA’s rejection was likely politically motivated (because of the then-current administrator’s opposition to cannabis legalization generally), this guidance from EPA was, nevertheless, consistent with Beyond Pesticides’ letters to states and EPA, which encouraged the cannabis industry to establish itself as an organic industry that eschews the use of toxic pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides is gravely concerned with the direction of this burgeoning sector. As of 2015, Executive Director Jay Feldman noted that “five states and DC have adopted rules that require marijuana to be grown with practices that prevent the use of pesticides. State officials have an opportunity to restrict all pesticide use at the front end of a growing market, require the adoption of an organic system plan, and set a course to protect health and the environment.” In states with medical and/or recreational legalization — or for those that may move in that direction — Beyond Pesticides strongly recommends the adoption of laws governing cannabis production that prohibit federally registered, though toxic, pesticides, and require the adoption of organic practices.

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

Sources: http://news.morningstar.com/all/benzinga/BenzBZW12229670/contamination-threatens-medicinal-cannabis-market-new-frontier-data-ceo-warns.aspx and https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/27/first-tests-are-in-and-one-in-five-marijuana-samples-in-california-isnt-making-grade

(Beyond Pesticides, September 6, 2018) Red swamp crayfish have long been associated with Louisiana and Gulf Coast bayous, but the species has found new homes throughout the world over the last 70 years, and evidence is showing that their introduction may alter ecosystems in ways that increase mosquito populations and human disease risk.  In late August, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles and Pepperdine University published new evidence in the journal Conservation Biology associating non-native crayfish in California streams with declines in dragonflies that would otherwise eat local mosquito populations. As mosquito species and disease vectors shift in response to a changing climate, influxes of non-native species and their impacts on ecosystems add another layer of complexity to communities aiming to manage mosquitoes and other vector-borne diseases.

Red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) are native to the U.S. Gulf Coast, but as a result of the aquarium pet trade, and their use as fish bait, have established opportunistic populations in wild ecosystems throughout the world – in every continent except Australia and Antarctica. In Southern California, researchers observed higher levels of mosquitoes in streams where the non-native crayfish have been found. To further understand the impact of this species on the native ecosystem, both laboratory and field studies were initiated.

Streams in Southern California were sampled, finding a strong correlation between the presence of crayfish and the number of mosquito and dragonfly nymphs, which are major predators of mosquito larvae. In streams where only dragonfly nymphs were found, no mosquito larvae were discovered. However, in steams that had crayfish present, both mosquito and dragonfly larvae were found.

Researchers then looked into whether the presence of crayfish was depressing the ability of dragonflies to hunt mosquito larvae. Laboratory tests found while dragonfly nymphs consumed roughly 70% of mosquito larvae provided when alone for a 60 minute period, when in the presence of crayfish, this number dropped to seven percent. Crayfish alone only consumed 12% of mosquito larvae provided, a fraction of what the dragonflies controlled.

In the lab, dragonflies were closely observed when they were put in tanks alongside crayfish. Researchers found that, rather than adjust their behavior based on the novel species, dragonfly nymphs exhibited what could be considered fear and confusion. Dragonflies were generally inactive when in the presence of red swamp crayfish, either hiding in the corner, or resting on crayfish claws or body.

The sum of this study points to significant concerns for disease management and ecosystem stability in Southern California streams and waterways. In the study, researchers either observed crayfish in a stream, or did not – there were no streams where crayfish were found at one location in the stream but not another. However, at each stream where crayfish had opportunistically colonized the area, there were higher levels of mosquito larvae, and lower levels of their main predator, the dragonfly nymph.

By depressing dragonfly predation, thereby increasing mosquito populations, non-native red swamp crayfish precipitated a trophic cascade that could lead to increased rates of human disease transmission. Beyond Pesticides recently covered pesticide-mediated trophic cascades in the Pesticides and You article Pesticide Use Harming Key Species Ripples through Ecosystem. In the case of California ecosystems, non-native crayfish are degrading the ecosystem, and causing stress much like the influx of a toxic pesticide.

However, while there are answers available that can readily replace toxic pesticide use and its ability to contaminate ecosystems through alternative practices and products, species removal is a much more difficult undertaking. But there are novel options being considered for this particular species. In Germany, for instance, the city of Berlin has recently licensed the wild catch of crayfish for restaurants.

Ultimately, this issue will need to be another consideration for mosquito managers as part of an integrated mosquito control framework. For instance, without natural dragonfly predators, streams that are found to contain crayfish should be made a priority target for use of a least-toxic larvacide like bacillus thuringiensis.

For more information on how to address mosquitoes and their diseases safely in your community and backyard, see Beyond Pesticides’ Mosquito Management homepage.

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

Source: National Geographic,  Conservation Biology

(Beyond Pesticides, September 5, 2018) Local Limits on Spraying Monsanto’s Toxic Weed Killer in Parks, Playgrounds, and Schoolyards. More than 50 city and county ordinances banning the use of the toxic weed killer glyphosate on local playgrounds, parks and schoolyards could be overturned by a provision championed by House Republicans in their version of the farm bill, a Beyond Pesticides and EWG analysis found.

A four-page provision tucked away in the 748-page farm bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June would likely preempt local governments from adopting their own pesticide regulations, including ordinances that prohibit the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, in parks and playgrounds.

Beyond Pesticides found that 58 local ordinances ban the use of glyphosate. Overall, 155 local ordinances that regulate the use of toxic chemicals in parks and playgrounds could be preempted by Sec. 9101 of the House’s farm bill.

Glyphosate is classified by the state of California as a chemical known to cause cancer, and as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization. Earlier this month, a San Francisco jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to a school groundskeeper who said years of working with Roundup caused his terminal cancer.

The analysis comes just weeks after tests commissioned by EWG found potentially unsafe levels of glyphosate residues in popular oat-based foods marketed toward children, including Cheerios.

Cities and counties that may no longer be able to ban glyphosate in places where children play include big cities like San Francisco and smaller communities like Evanston, Ill., among many other locations.

“Children are especially susceptible to the health impacts of toxic pesticides, so our communities should be able to decide whether our kids are rolling around in weed killers linked to cancer while playing at the park,” said Scott Faber, EWG’s senior vice president of government affairs. “Section 9101 of the House farm bill would block our communities from keeping our kids safe.”

“As independent science continues to shine light on the dangers pesticides pose to human health and the environment, local communities are responding by successfully eliminating these toxic products from regular use,” said Drew Toher, Community Resource and Policy Director at Beyond Pesticides. “Congress must continue to uphold the right of these localities to restrict pesticides linked to cancer, water contamination and pollinator decline.”

The section of the farm bill that could block cities and counties from adopting their own pesticide safety standards is opposed by the National League of Cities and the National Association of County Officials. Last week, 107 members of the House sent a letter to the farm bill conferees outlining their opposition to pesticide riders like Section 9101 and the “Poison Our Waters Provision,” which would eliminate Clean Water Act safeguards to protect communities from pesticides sprayed directly into water supplies.

Among the companies and industry groups registered to lobby Congress on pesticide provisions of the farm bill is Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, Dow and CropLife America.

“Parents and city leaders, not pesticide corporations, should decide whether their kids are playing in pesticides,” Mr. Faber said.

“To protect the health of their residents and local environment, communities have successfully implemented policies that should not be prohibited by laws written in Washington, DC,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “But, that’s what proposed language in the farm bill will do, by preempting local rights to restrict pesticides,” he continued.

To see all communities with existing pesticide restrictions that could be preempted by the House farm bill, click here.

TAKE ACTION:
If a Democratic Senator(s) represents you in the U.S. Senate, click here to let the Senator know that you want this provision preempting the rights of local governments kept out of the Farm Bill.

If your Democratic U.S. Representative is not on the letter from 105 members to the Farm Bill conference committee (click here to see letter), please reach out and tell them that you want them to sign-on the letter or write their own letter opposing preemption. Click here to find your Representative and then click on the envelope under his/her picture to send the following message: Please sign on to Rep. Donald McEachin’s letter to the Farm Bill conference committee, urging that Sec. 9101 in the GOP Farm Bill be rejected and the right of local governments to protect children’s and environmental health be preserved.

Contacts:
Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides,202-255-4296, [email protected]
Drew Toher, community resource and policy director, Beyond Pesticides, 202-543-5450, [email protected]
Alex Formuzis, Sr VP Communications and Strategic Campaigns, Environmental Working Group (EWG), 202-667-6982, [email protected]

(Beyond Pesticides, September 4, 2018) Close on the heels of the recent landmark California decision against Monsanto, maker of the glyphosate-based pesticide Roundup, Vietnam has demanded that the company pay damages to the many victims of its Agent Orange herbicide and defoliant, which Monsanto supplied to the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. (Monsanto was not the only U.S. manufacturer of the compound; there were nine in total.) U.S. forces, in a program dubbed Operation Ranch Hand, used more than 13 million gallons of the compound in Vietnam — nearly one-third of the 20 million gallons of all herbicides used during the war in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. In Vietnam alone, 4.5 million acres were impacted by Agent Orange.

Nguyen Phuong Tra, a spokesperson for Vietnam’s foreign ministry, said, “The [U.S.] verdict serves as a legal precedent which refutes previous claims that the herbicides made by Monsanto and other chemical corporations in the U.S. and provided for the U.S. army in the war are harmless. . . . Vietnam has suffered tremendous consequences from the war, especially with regard to the lasting and devastating effects of toxic chemicals, including Agent Orange.”

Around the world, the U.S. case may be sparking bolder actions on the toxic weed killer. In that watershed decision, the jury in San Francisco County Superior Court awarded Dewayne “Lee” Johnson $289 million in compensatory and punitive damages for his exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup (whose active ingredient is glyphosate) that caused his subsequent development of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, as well as for the corporation’s deliberate and protracted cover-ups to keep the risks of exposure to glyphosate hidden from the public and regulators.

Agent Orange got its moniker because of the color of the band around the 55-gallon drums in which the chemical was transported. Other herbicides used by U.S. forces in Vietnam were identified as Agents White, Blue, Purple, Pink, and Green. The Orange version — comprising 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, still widely used as a broadleaf herbicide) and 2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid) — was used to defoliate food crops and forest cover used by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops during the Vietnam War. The toxic compound was sprayed heavily on forested areas, farmland and rice paddies, waterways, and roads. Military members — numbering approximately 2.6 million — were not the only people potentially exposed; crops and water sources used by non-combatant South Vietnamese people were also affected.

The compound contained significant amounts of the synthetic contaminant dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin), often called TCDD. Dioxins are highly toxic chemicals that persist for years in the environment (especially in soils, lake and river sediments, and the food chain), and accumulate in fatty tissues of animals. Dioxins are carcinogenic, toxic even at very low exposure levels, and responsible for both acute and long-term effects. They have been proven to cause not only cancer, but also, other grave health problems, such as birth defects, extreme rashes (chloracne and related conditions), and severe neurological and psychological issues. This has been true for both Vietnamese military and civilian people who were exposed, and for U.S. Vietnam-era service members. It should be noted that those in the military are not the only workers impacted by TCDD; workers in other sectors have registered health effects, including employees in pesticide manufacturing and transport facilities, farm and forestry operations, and pulp and paper mills.

Many Vietnam Era service members have long charged Agent Orange with responsibility for a host of maladies they suffered both in the field, and in the years after their return stateside. They began to link their exposures to Agent Orange with the myriad chronic health issues some were developing. In 1979, the first class action suit was brought against five manufacturers (with more added to the suit later on) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was brought by the class comprising Vietnam veterans, and their spouses, parents, and children; it did not name the federal government as a third-party defendant. (A 1950 U.S. Supreme Court case gave rise to the Feres doctrine, which prevents claims against the federal government by armed forces members and their families for injuries arising from, or in the course of, activity incident to military service.) The outcome was a settlement in the form of a $180 million fund to be used to: (1) provide cash payments to totally disabled veterans and survivors of deceased veterans; (2) establish a class assistance foundation to help meet the medical, social, and legal service needs of members of the class; and (3) establish a trust fund for New Zealand and Australian class members. Because a settlement was made out of court, no determination of the causal relationship between Agent Orange exposure and veterans’ health outcomes was made.

Subsequently, beginning with the first claims the Veterans Administration (VA) received related to Agent Orange in 1977, veterans’ groups and other advocates have worked persistently to get recognition for the harms of Agent Orange to veterans — and in some cases, to their children — as well as coverage for medical needs and disability. It has been, no doubt, a maddening journey, with repeated delays in progress and glacially incremental expansion of coverages.

Any federal attempt to deal with coverage for exposed veterans started with the 1984 Congressional passage of Public Law 98-542, which “provide[d] compensation to Vietnam veterans for soft tissue sarcoma and require[d] the VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs] to establish standards for Agent Orange and atomic radiation compensation” (which law the VA has been charged with largely ignoring). This was followed by a 1989 order, by a federal judge, that the VA reconsider 31,000 Vietnam Era vets’ claims related to health impacts of exposure, and the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which established that certain diseases tied to chemical exposure would be presumed related to a veteran’s military service and would make such veterans eligible for benefits.

This act really marked the beginning of at least passive acknowledgement, by the federal government, that its use of Agent Orange was causal of many health problems. The health issues covered by this “presumption policy” has grown over time to include: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, soft-tissue sarcoma, and chloracne (1991); multiple myeloma, respiratory cancers, Hodgkin’s disease, and porphyria cutanea tarda, a metabolic disease (1994); type II diabetes (2001); chronic lymphocytic leukemia (2003); AL amyloidosis (2009); chronic B-cell leukemias, Parkinson’s disease, and ischemic heart disease (2010); prostate cancer (2015); and peripheral neuropathy (2016). VetsHQ is an online veterans’ community that describes its mission as “helping ensure America’s commitments to veterans and their families are honored.” Its website provides many tools for vets, and a very useful timeline of significant events in the Agent Orange saga.

A 2018 update on coverage from the VA is available here. The agency reported in June of this year that its presumption policy — which sets out the diseases or syndromes that are assumed related to Agent Orange exposure — has resulted in increased utilization of VA healthcare benefits by veterans. The agency notes that a study by researchers from the War Related Illness and Injury Study Center (WRIISC) at the VA New Jersey Healthcare System found that the “law passed by Congress nearly 30 years ago [the Agent Orange Act of 1991] has largely met its goal: helping affected Veterans get the care they need.”

Yet progress in veterans receiving the support they need has been interspersed with plenty of setbacks, including denials of claims, government statements of inconclusive causation, and delays or failures of potentially helpful legislation. For example, until 2015, military personnel who worked in, on, or around the C-123 — the aircraft that delivered Agent Orange in Vietnam and elsewhere in Asia during or after the Vietnam War — were deemed ineligible for medical care and disability coverage for their exposures. These contaminated transport aircraft were never decontaminated after their Southeast Asia service, and some were repurposed, back in the U.S., for basic transport operations, such as cargo shipping and medical evacuation missions.

The VA had declared that “dried residues” of Agent Orange in these C-123s were likely not harmful, but a 2014 study showed that people who worked on or around the C-123 were very likely to have been exposed to dioxin from those residues. Beyond Pesticides reported, in June 2015, that things were looking more hopeful, saying, “After years of denial and obstruction, Air Force and Air Force Reserve veterans now have the chance to receive compensation for their exposure to the highly toxic herbicide Agent Orange on contaminated aircraft used after the Vietnam War.” In that year, 1,500–2,100 service members did gain eligibility for coverage.

A further example of the difficulties veterans have had and continue to have: as Pro Publica reported in 2015, the 1991 Agent Orange Act made eligible for benefits veterans with certain diseases who “‘must have actually set foot on Vietnamese soil or served on a craft in its rivers (also known as “brown water veterans”),’ according to the Congressional Research Service. . . . Those who instead spent time on deep-water Navy ships (called ‘Blue Water Navy’ veterans) do not qualify unless they can show that they spent time on Vietnam land or rivers.” Now, in 2018, a U.S. House of Representatives bill (HR 299) that would extend Agent Orange disability benefits and health care to 70,000–90,000 veterans who served aboard ships in territorial waters off Vietnam during the war, passed the House unanimously, but is being opposed by the VA, which is urging the Senate to quash it.

Paul R. Lawrence, VA Undersecretary for Benefits, testified that “There’s still no credible scientific evidence to support extending Agent Orange-related benefits to shipboard personnel who never went ashore in Vietnam or patrolled its rivers. Without such evidence, he said, it would be wrong, and would create a disastrous precedent, to award VA benefits.” Although David Shulkin, the first VA secretary under the Trump administration, had said, one year into the job, “These veterans have waited too long and this is a responsibility that this country has. . . .  It is a high priority for us,” the scorching comment from Mr. Lawrence came days after the subsequent secretary, Robert Wilkie, assumed the secretary post.

Pro Publica offers a helpful guide to which groups are covered for Agent Orange–related issues, or are seeking coverage. Those groups include: those who served in Vietnam; Air Force personnel exposed to contaminated C-123 aircraft; Blue Water veterans; those who served in or near the Korean DMZ (demilitarized zone), 1968–1971; Air Force personnel who worked in Thailand, 1961–1975; and children of veterans. Currently, kids of Vietnam Era vets with spina bifida qualify for benefits, and children of female vets qualify if they suffer from 18 other various conditions. There may be coming research on potential epigenetic effects on children of veterans that could add others to the coverage list.

Halfway across the world, people in Vietnam are dealing with many of the same health, never mind environmental (such as persistence of dioxin in the food chain) issues. In 2012, as Beyond Pesticides reported, the U.S. launched its first major effort to address environmental contamination brought on by its use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War — after decades of denying Vietnamese requests for assistance in a cleanup. Five years later, PBS reported a mixed picture, and perhaps waning commitment, on keeping on top of that task, given costs. Whether Vietnam’s latest attempt to achieve some justice for its affected people bears future fruit — in what may, in light of the recent California award, be a changing landscape on corporate culpability for harms to human health — will be a development eagerly awaited by that country, and by advocates for policies on toxic chemicals that will actually protect people and our environments.

For more information about the legacy of Agent Orange, see Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide Induced Diseases Database.

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

Primary source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/vietnam-agent-orange-monsanto-victims-compensation-a8508271.html