(Beyond Pesticides, February 6, 2017) California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) rules that allow greater use of the highly toxic fumigant Telone, while decreasing protections for the public, have been challenged in California court. On January 31, attorneys representing Juana Vasquez, a farmworker in Ventura County, along with Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), filed suit in the Superior Court of California against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR). The suit claims that CDPR failed to follow required public procedures in developing new rules for 1,3-Dicholopropene (1,3-D), which is an active ingredient in the product Telone and has many documented health risks, including cancer and kidney and liver damage.

In October 2016, CDPR released new rules that allow the continued use of Telone and decrease protections for public health by permitting increased usage. CDPR and many news outlets reported the rule change as a tightening of the restrictions, but in reality, the new rules increase the previous annual cap from 90,250 pounds to 136,000 pounds per township, a defined area of 6×6 miles. These new rules went into effect on January 1, 2017, allowing for 1,3-D’s continued use in strawberry fields, vineyards, almond orchards, and other crops around California.

According to a press release from PANNA, the lawsuit charges that CDPR approved the new rules for Telone without allowing for public notice, giving an opportunity for public comment, and providing a response to comments. It also claims that CDPR violated a state law that requires collaboration with scientists from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to develop health-protective rules. OEHHA expressed concerns regarding the sufficiency of the new rules, “including revised application limits and air concentration standards to protect nearby residents and workers from cancer risks.” The plaintiffs call for a new process that complies with state law, including revised regulations that are based on the recommendations of OEHHA.

“State officials ignored science and shirked public oversight as they ensured the continued and potentially expanded use of this cancer-causing pesticide,” said Natalia Ospina in a statement to PANNA, an Oxnard-based attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance representing the farmworker plaintiff. “This blatant regulatory failure continues to put rural and farmworker communities in harm’s way.”

1,3-D is a federally restricted-use soil fumigant used to kill nematodes, insects, and weeds. The use of the chemical in the production of strawberries came into prominence with the forced reduction of another fumigant, methyl bromide. Scientists became concerned about methyl bromide in the 1970’s, when it was linked to ozone depletion. Methyl bromide is still widely used in California to grow strawberries, despite its ban under the Montreal Protocol, but it will no longer be eligible for a critical use exemption after 2016. This phasing out of methyl bromide stimulated another class of toxic fumigants, which includes Telone.

In time, 1,3-D was revealed to be no better than its predecessor, raising concerns about the public health and environmental risks associated with its use. A 2014 publication by the Center for Investigative Reporting, Dark Side of the Strawberry, revealed that increased use of 1,3-D results in unsafe levels of the chemical in the air and that decisions behind 1,3-D monitoring and application rates are fraught with industry manipulation and risk reduction work-arounds. A 2016 case study out of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) looked at three fumigants– Telone, chloropicrin, and metam salts— and found that:

• These pesticides may interact to increase the health risk for California farm workers and residents,
• Workers and residents are regularly exposed to two or more of these pesticides simultaneously, and
• CDPR does not regulate the application of multiple pesticides to prevent or decrease risks to human health, despite having authority to do so.

Additionally, in late September 2016, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed a lawsuit against Dow Agrosciences LLC, Telone’s manufacturer, charging that the “chemical manufacturing giant” fails to warn communities across California about the dangers associated with wide use of the chemical Telone. The case focuses on the air pollution caused by the pesticide, which has been found to linger in the air for multiple days after application, disproportionately impacting the rural communities, often with large minority populations, that live in the immediate vicinity.

In a statement to PANNA, Ohlone Elementary teacher Melissa Dennis said: “DPR came last October to tell us the ‘good news’ that they measured cancer-causing Telone at 0.12 parts per billion in the air our schoolchildren breathe. How is that ‘good’? OEHHA scientists say we should be concerned at 0.1 parts per billion.

As teachers and parents, we’re worried and angry!” These documented hazards associated with fumigants and strawberry production emphasize the need to shift away from dependency on toxic chemicals and seek sustainable, organic solutions to crop production and feeding families. Toxic soil fumigants also destroy soil biota, which provides the basis for healthy soils, plants, and people. There are less toxic ways to grow strawberries and other crops than relying on these toxic fumigants. Growing strawberries organically has been shown to create healthier soils, higher quality fruit, and improve pollination success. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ website to learn more about supporting organic agriculture and making sustainable choices in the foods we eat.

Source: PANNA

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 3, 2017) The Ruby Throated Hummingbird is the pollinator of the month for February. Hummingbirds are nature’s most nimble of birds. They are so quick and agile that most of the time all you’ll see is a flash of red and green before realizing you just encountered a Ruby Throated Hummingbird. This month’s pollinator is the most abundant species of hummingbird on the eastern half of North America. They are named after the coloration of ruby red feathers around their throat.

Range
The Ruby Throated Hummingbird is the most populous hummingbird found east of the Mississippi. They enjoy mild habitats such as pine and deciduous forests, and can also be found zipping around urban and suburban gardens and orchards.  Ruby Throated Hummingbirds “winter,” meaning they migrate to warmer parts of the globe during the colder winter months. They typically spend that time in parts of Central America and southern Mexico, but have been known to travel as far south as Costa Rica and the West Indies, according to Animal Diversity Web. They will often migrate without stopping, traveling distances as great as 1,600 km in one trip.  According to the Encyclopedia of Life, the hummingbird’s mating grounds are typically east of the 100^th meridian in the United States and parts of southern Canada. Their ability to inhabit such a diverse range of habitats make them an important pollinator to many ecosystems across eastern North America.

Diet and Pollination
Nectar from flowering plants comprises the majority of the Ruby Throated Hummingbird’s diet, but fat and protein are supplied by small insects, including mosquitoes, spiders, gnats, fruit flies, and small species of bees. They have also been observed eating tree sap, and their northern limit is probably determined by the availability of sap provided by the drilling of sapsuckers.

According to the Encyclopedia of Life, Ruby Throated Hummingbirds have adapted to be able to see the UV spectrum of light in addition to the visible light spectrum, which helps them locate and differentiate between a variety flowers. Their favorites include:  Red Buckeye, Jewel Weed, Trumpet Creeper, Red Morning Glory, Coral Honeysuckle and the Cardinal Flower, just to name a few.

Physiology
Most hummingbirds are small statured compared to their other avian counterparts, and the Ruby Throated Hummingbird is no exception. Ranging in length from 7 to 9 cm and weighing only a few grams, the bird can easily fit in the palm of your hand.  Their incredible flying abilities are attributed to their lightweight and stream line bodies. Spectacular as those abilities are, however, they can be taxing on the bird and require a lot of energy. Because of this, the Ruby Throated Hummingbird will consume twice their body weight in food each day.

Ruby Throated Hummingbird’s coloration is striking, featuring beautiful shades of green, white and red. Males can be distinguished from females by their tail feathers, as males have a forked feather configuration while females boast a square feather configuration with white tips. Males additionally have the characteristic red, ruby throat while females will have a duller, grayish-red colored throat. Females are larger than their male counterparts.

Ruby Throated Hummingbirds are migratory birds, returning to their breeding grounds in eastern North America each spring. Males generally return to the breeding grounds ahead of females to stake out their territory for mating. Once a female enters a male’s territory, the male bird will court the female with a dive display meant to impress the female. As part of this display, the male will do a variety of loops and acrobatic flying maneuvers, beating its wings up to 200 times per second. After successful breeding, the female constructs a nest for her eggs out of bud scales and lichen, held together with spider’s silk and lined with plant down. There the female will lay one to three eggs, which are incubated for 10-14 days before they hatch, a cycle that is repeated two or three times per breeding season. The average lifespan of the Ruby Throated Hummingbird is about nine years.

Ecological Role
Ruby Throated Hummingbirds live on a diet of nectar from a variety of flowering plants and, as previously stated, consume up to twice their bodyweight in nectar each day. This requires constant foraging for sources of nectar and the birds spend most of their day flying flower to flower in search of this food source. They are equipped with a long, skinny modified beak that allows them to access nectar, as well as a long tongue that can further be extended into the flower.

While foraging for nectar the hummingbird simultaneously contaminates itself with pollen particles from the flower. The pollen sticks to the birds’ feathers and beak, allowing the bird to transport it to the next flower it visits. Once that pollen comes in to contact with a new flower, the plant is inadvertently cross-pollinated, allowing the plant to reproduce. The abundance of Ruby Throated Hummingbirds make them an integral pollinator to ecosystems across the eastern United States and parts of Canada. Partners for flight, an organization that tracks land birds for conservation purposes, estimates the Ruby Throated Hummingbird population in North America and Canada is as great as 34 million.

Threats to Existence
The Ruby Throated Hummingbird is currently a thriving species, labeled as a species with “Least Concern” by the International Union for Conservation. This simply means their existence is not currently at risk. The United States Geological Service Patuxent Wildlife research center, which has been tracking land bird species since the 1960’s, has found that Ruby Throated Hummingbird populations have been on the rise since their studies began. Even though the species is not currently at risk, however, conservation efforts to protect the birds’ future success should not be ignored. Destruction of natural habitat is a primary risk that can affect the hummingbird’s ability to prepare for migration, as well as diminish the bird’s breeding grounds and disrupt its reproductive success. The bird’s exposure to systemic pesticides that move through a plant’s vascular and is expressed in nectar is of particular concern.

How to Protect the Species
There are steps that can be taken to protect Ruby Throated Hummingbirds, one of the most popular being to install a hummingbird feeder in your yard or garden. Simple actions, like placing hummingbird feeders away from windows to prevent collisions, or situating feeders in places where cats and other neighborhood predators will have a difficult time reaching the birds, are important ways to help hummingbirds thrive. Routine cleaning of hummingbird feeders is also important, as rancid feeders can be detrimental to hummingbird health. Supplying your hummingbird feeder with the right nectar solution is also important. You can find a trusted nectar recipe recommended by the Smithsonian National Zoo by clicking here!  Be sure to use organic sugar in the mix. It will ensure that the nectar solution is free of pesticides and additives.

Planting the aforementioned flowers preferred by the Ruby Throated Hummingbird is another way to preserve hummingbird populations, as they require nectar for survival. Make sure that the plants are not treated with systemic, including neonicotinoid, and other pesticides. Maintaining biodiversity in your garden will nurture the pollinators, including the hummingbirds.

What is Polli-NATION?
When it comes to pollination, bees tend to get all of the buzz. While they are crucial to pollinating many crops, bees are not the only pollinators working hard to provide the ecosystem services critical to the food system. In fact, one out of every three bites of food is made possible by pollinators. In order to raise awareness for the unsung pollinator heroes, Beyond Pesticides created the Polli-NATION Campaign, which highlights the important work of a relatively unknown pollinator each month, including butterflies, wasps, flies, beetles, birds, bats, and more. The campaign raises public awareness about these pollinators, their contribution to plant health and productivity and the preservation of natural resources, and the threats they face in their daily lives, including toxic pesticides and habitat loss. Learn what you can do in your community to help ensure their survival of all the pollinators.

Sources: Animal Diversity Web, Encyclopedia of Life, The Birder’s Handbook.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 2, 2017) A commonly used inert pesticide ingredient negatively affects the health of honey bees by making larvae more susceptible to a virus, according to a recently published study in the journal, Nature. One of the authors of the study, Julia Fine, PhD candidate, stated that the findings, “Mirror the symptoms observed in hives following almond pollination, when bees are exposed to organosilicone adjuvant residues in pollen, and viral pathogen prevalence is known to increase. In recent years, beekeepers have reported missing, dead and dying brood in their hives following almond pollination, and exposure to agrochemicals, like adjuvants, applied during bloom, has been suggested as a cause.”

The study assessed honey bee larval development after exposure to a continuous low dose of Sylgard 309, a surfactant, in their diet. This organosilicone surfactant is commonly used on agricultural crops, including tree fruits, nuts, and grapes. Their results reveal that honey bee exposure to chemical surfactants such as Sylgard 309 led to higher levels of Black Queen Cell Virus and when the bee larvae were exposed to the surfactant and virus simultaneously, “the effect on their mortality was synergistic rather than additive.” This research comes at a time when hundreds of thousands of pounds of these products are being applied annually in California almond orchards alone. Honey bees are trucked in from all around the country to provide this vital pollination service for high value crops, therefore elevating the possibility of damaging additive effects.

Surfactants are added to pesticide formulations to increase their efficacy by reducing surface tension and aiding in overall absorption of the product in the target plant. These inert ingredients often make up the majority, by weight, of the pesticide mixtures that are sold. Despite the uncertainties and potential hazards from inerts, pesticide manufacturers are only required to list the active ingredients in a pesticide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This leaves consumers and applicators unaware of the possible toxicity present in a vast majority of the pesticide formulations they are using, unless the EPA Administrator determines that the chemical poses a public health threat.

Many inert ingredients are even more toxic than the active ingredients. One of the most hazardous ingredients in the commonly used herbicide Roundup, POEA, is a surfactant that is classified as an inert and therefore not listed on the label. Researchers have found that POEA can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells.

These “inert” ingredients in pesticide formulations are continuing to draw the attention of scientists, and play a part in bee toxicity in conjunction with ongoing investigations into the role of neonicotinoid insecticides in bee health. A 2016 review, titled Toxicological Risks of Agrochemical Spray Adjuvants, links spray adjuvant use with declining honey bee health, based on annual trends in applications of adjuvants and associated pesticide formulations during almond pollination in California. The authors stated, “Among adjuvant classes, the organosilicone surfactants pose the greatest toxicity risks for honey bees.” A separate study released by Pennsylvania State University researchers in 2012 observes that bee learning behavior is impaired by exposure to low doses of surfactants –other ingredients commonly found in pesticide formulations. These researchers measured the olfactory learning ability of honey bees treated orally with sublethal doses of the ,most widely used spray adjuvants on almonds in the Central Valley of California.

In addition to the detrimental effect that inert ingredients have been found to have on honey bees, the body of evidence pointing to the role of neonicotinoids in declining honey bee numbers is consistently growing. Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affects the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. While the issue of pollinator declines is diverse and complex, with many factors potentially contributing to the cause, pesticides have consistently been implicated as a key factor, not only through immediate bee deaths, but also through sublethal exposure. Neonics are associated with decreased learning, foraging, and navigational ability, as well as increased vulnerability to pathogens and parasites as a result of suppressed bee immune systems. In addition to toxicity to bees, pesticides like neonicotinoids have been shown to also adversely affect birds, aquatic organisms, and contaminate soil and waterways, and overall biodiversity.

In light of the shortcomings of federal action in the U.S. to protect these beneficial organisms, it is left up to us to ensure that we provide safe havens for pollinators by creating pesticide-free habitat and educating others to do the same. You can pledge your green space as pesticide-free and pollinator-friendly, no matter the size. Sign the pledge today. See our BEE Protective page to find out how you can help this effort and how to get your community, schools, and local government to take action to protect pollinators. Beyond Pesticides also advocates for the adoption of organic land management practices and policies by local communities.

Sources: Nature, Science Daily, Scientific American

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 1, 2017) Last week in North Miami, the City Council took a significant step that could reduce pesticide use in the community. The Council adopted an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy modeled after a plan developed by San Francisco in the mid-90’s. The plan does not ban pesticides and herbicides, but instead aims to reeducate citizens and county workers on least-toxic pest management strategies with the goal of eliminating toxic pesticide use on city property.  The IPM plan does not address pesticide use on private property, due to state preemption of local authority.

With the passage of the North Miami’s resolution, city operatives will now be asked to give preference to available, safe and effective non-pesticide alternatives and cultural practices. As stated in the resolution’s Integrated Pesticide Management Program Guidelines, the goal of the policy is “to eliminate the application of all Toxicity Category I and Category II pesticide products by January 2018.” On top of eliminating certain pesticide categories, the resolution also calls for staff training and expert consultants, both of which have the potential to help ease the transition in pursuit of the 2018 goal, and priority will be given to efforts to reduce or eliminate pesticide use near watercourses or riparian areas. However, as with most IPM plan, the success of the program will likely rely on strict oversight of executive implementation, as this is often a downfall of ordinances that do not incorporate complete bans or stringent guidelines for allowed products.

Supporters of the resolution have responded to critics concerned over the additional cost and manpower it might require by pointing out the benefits of cutting down on overall pesticide use. According to the Miami Herald, supporters believe that the change will be worthwhile if it can prevent harmful effects often caused by pesticides, including reducing the impact of pesticides on the city’s waterways and canals and limiting human exposure. According to the Herald, “Staff members in every department will be trained on pesticides and alternatives, and the city will hire a consultant to evaluate and execute the plan. Signage will also be placed in areas where the city is currently spraying pesticides and herbicides.”

Passage of the resolution may just be the start for Florida communities, however, as residents from the nearby municipality Biscayne Park have already expressed hopes that their village will consider a similar plan. This news excited Councilwoman Carol Keys, who said, “I hope that the other cities will look to us as an example. This is a small step, but I think it’s really, really important.”

The resolution passed by North Miami is just the second IPM plan to come out of Florida, a state notorious for its lack of pesticide protections. The only other community to pass an IPM program in Florida is Sarasota, whose 2015 resolution has significantly less depth and scope than the one passed by North Miami. As part of a joint project with Organic Consumers Association, Beyond Pesticides developed a Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies to track state and local efforts to eliminate hazardous pesticides from public and private spaces, which can be viewed to determine whether pesticide reforms are taking place in your area.

The map provides the public and local leaders with the names and locations of localities that have passed policies, the type of policy passed, a short description of the scope of the policy, and a link to view the entire text. The current edition of the map includes 18 communities with pesticide-free parks programs, 29 with restrictions to protect pollinators, 66 communities with policies that restrict pesticide use on all publicly owned property, and 24 that extend restrictions to private land. Beyond Pesticides encourages people to review the accuracy of the information on the map, and email to [email protected] with policies that have not been captured on the map. Citizens interested in initiating a pesticide policy in their own community can sign up here for more information.

Local jurisdictions in many states, Florida included, are limited in their ability to regulate pesticides on private property due to state preemption laws. In the wake of a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1991, Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, which ruled that federal pesticide law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)) does not preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government, but also said that states retain the ability to take away local control, the pesticide industry lead an effort to pass state preemption laws that restrict local action on private property. The industry group called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, developed boilerplate legislative language that was adopted in all but seven states, severely limiting the ability of local jurisdictions to protect the health and safety of their citizens from the harms of toxic pesticides.

Because of these restrictions, the North Miami IPM plan only covers efforts to “eliminate or reduce pesticide applications on city property.” This is a significant difference in the effect of policies implemented by municipalities like South Portland, Maine or Montgomery County, Maryland, where the absence of state preemption allowed local government to address the use of pesticides on private property within their jurisdiction. Both ordinances ban the use of toxic lawn pesticides on private and public land and are exemplary public health measures. While the scope of North Miami’s policy extends beyond lawns, the city is restricted under current state law from passing a measure that restricts pesticide use on private property, like Montgomery County and South Portland.

In the wake of a rollback in federal protections under the Trump administration, it is critical that local governments have the authority to protect residents within their jurisdiction from pesticides that move through the community, contaminating air, water, and land. If you want to get active in your community to stop unnecessary toxic pesticide use, sign this petition and Beyond Pesticides will send you a blueprint for local change!

Source: Miami Herald

All unattributed positions are that of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 31, 2017) A tentative ruling last week by Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan moves California closer to listing glyphosate (Roundup) as a carcinogen under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Monsanto, a leading manufacturer of glyphosate under its Roundup brand, sued California to stop the listing, as it would require cancer warning labels be placed on its end-use product. The company indicates it will challenge the tentative ruling.

California’s proposed to list glyphosate as a carcinogen after a 2015 determination of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a United Nations body under the World Health Organization, that the chemical is a cancer-causing agent for humans based on laboratory studies. Monsanto refutes these claims, and since the determination has worked directly, and through proxy organizations, to discredit and attack IARC, as well as individual scientists that have participated in its decision-making process. Shortly after IARC’s Monograph on glyphosate, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), a Monsanto-supported group, released a report dismissing glyphosate’s link to cancer. In October of last year, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), questioned the National Institutes of Health on taxpayer contributions to IARC. Croplife America, a trade association for chemical companies, worked last year to undermine the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s public review process of glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties.  Just last week, the American Chemistry Council, another consortium of agrichemical giants, including Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, and Dupont, attacked IARC for its monograph program.

Outside observers see Monsanto’s efforts as attempts to scuttle the science of independent researchers in order to protect its bottom line. California, in its court filing, called IARC’s monographs the “gold standard” for determining the carcinogenicity of chemicals in our environment. Many farmers who believe their exposure to glyphosate resulted in their cancer diagnosis are applauding the court ruling. “I don’t want anyone to go through what I have gone through,” said John Barton, a Bakersfield farmer with non-Hodgkin lymphoma he asserts was caused by Roundup exposure, to the Fresno Bee. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Teri McCall said she thinks a warning on Roundup products would have saved her late husband. “I just don’t think my husband would have taken that risk if he had known,” McCall said to the Los Angeles Times.  Monsanto is facing a large number of personal injury lawsuits, and a potential mass tort action, over the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.

As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate continue to mount, environmental groups like Beyond Pesticides are urging localities to ban or restrict the use of the chemical and other toxic synthetic pesticides. These groups maintain that California’s glyphosate listing is certainly a step in the right direction; however, further steps toward a restriction or ban will be needed to protect the public’s health. Being  the number one agricultural producing state, California’s action may help to move glyphosate off the market, which would serve as a victory for the low-income communities in the southern part of the Central Valley that are exposed to glyphosate at higher levels than the general population.

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

Source: Los Angeles Times, Fresno Bee

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 30, 2016) The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research branch, is again under attack. The most recent assault comes from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents major U.S. chemical companies such as Bayer, Dow, Dupont and Monsanto and is calling on WHO to rein in IARC, claiming the agency of “dubious and misleading work” when classifying potential carcinogens. According to the ACC’s website, the Council launched the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research this past Wednesday and it is unclear what steps it will take try to undercut the agency. The ACC is specifically criticizing IARC’s monograph program, claiming that the program “suffers from persistent scientific and process deficiencies.”

IARC is a France based self-governing branch of WHO, which is an independent agency working with over 150 countries to “build a better, healthier future for people all over the world,” as stated in the mission statement on their website. Monographs published by IARC are evaluations on a variety of products and lifestyle choices that have ranged from the consumption of processed meats and coffee to the usage of mobile phones and the controversial use of glyphosate in agriculture. In March of 2015, IARC released its findings on glyphosate, which concluded that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based on laboratory studies.

This attack on IARC follows one in the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in October 2016. The Committee summoned the National Institutes of Health to answer questions about taxpayer contributions to WHO’s cancer agency. The committee had problems with IARC scientists’ findings that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. The move was led by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), chairman of the committee, and was a clear attempt to challenge IARC’s March 2015 findings on glyphosate. In defending IARC’s previous findings, IARC director Christopher Wild, Ph.D. rejected Rep. Chaffetz’ criticisms and defended IARC’s findings, known as “monographs,” as “widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process and. . .freedom from conflicts of interest.”

ACC represents the vested economic interest of large U.S. chemical companies. which determine its positions. Cal Dooley CEO and president of the ACC has said in a statement about their call to strip IARC’s program, saying that “IARC monographs program has been responsible for countless misleading headlines about the safety of the food we eat, the jobs we do and the products we use in our daily lives.”  IARC director Christopher Wild, Ph.D. has made it clear that IARC is solely concerned with uncovering the truth through sound science, not pushing any sort of hidden agenda.

Glyphosate, produced and sold as Roundup by Monsanto, is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by EPA and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. However, IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen finds that glyphosate is anything but safe. According to IARC, Group 2A means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. The agency is considering the findings of an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel report, along with several recent studies in making its conclusion. Advocates want the agency to also consider studies that show glyphosate causes DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells, and epidemiologic studies that show elevated levels of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma are associated with glyphosate exposure.

Independent peer-reviewed science both in and outside of the U.S., including IARC, points to a growing list of adverse effects from pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, ranging from the  decline of bees to the carcinogenicity of the widely used herbicide glyphosate. It is critical that federal scientific agencies tasked with protecting human and environmental health are able to inform the public without repercussions from industry groups. Beyond Pesticides supports the independent science conducted by IARC, and urges that its work continues ungagged by industry groups.

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

Source: Business Insider and Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, January 27, 2016) Last week, farmers, environmentalists, and conservation groups filed a federal lawsuit that challenges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of a new formulation of the toxic herbicide dicamba. The new formulation is called Xtendimax with Vapor Grip Technology, which is claimed to have lower volatility. The petitioners claim that EPA violated its duties under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in issuing a conditional registration, and that it did not adhere to duties under the Endangered Species Act that require EPA to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure registration would not harm any listed species. The organizations involved in the lawsuit are National Family Farm Coalition, Pesticide Action Network North America, Center for Food Safety, and Center for Biological Diversity, represented by legal counsel from Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety.

Dicamba has caused a lot of controversy in the past. In August 2016, farmers in Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee confronted widespread crop damage and braced for lower yields as a result of agrichemical giant Monsanto’s botched roll-out of GE soybean and cotton crops. The company, whose current line of glyphosate-tolerant crops are failing to control weeds throughout the U.S. and across the globe, developed a new line of soybean and cotton with traits that make it tolerate applications of dicamba. After numerous complaints, EPA launched a criminal investigation at several locations in Missouri into the illegal spraying of dicamba in October 2016. Many suspect that farmers who planted the new dicamba-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) seeds in the region, when faced with a proliferation of pigweed, illegally sprayed dicamba across their fields, leading to drift and off-site crop damage to other farmers. Monsanto is currently embroiled in a legal battle with a farmer who projected that he would lose $1.5 million in revenue from crop damage due to the formulation’s release.

Pesticide drift is an inevitable problem of pesticide application, and dicamba drift and subsequent crop injury to broadleaf crops has been a frequent problem. Abnormal leaf growth, floral development, reduced yield, and reduced quality have all been observed from dicamba drift. A study published by Pennsylvania State scientists in late 2015 found dicamba drift was “frequently responsible for sublethal, off-target damage” to plants and insects. Researchers find that even very low rates of dicamba herbicide exposure negatively affected plant flowering, and thus insect pollination. Dicamba has also been linked to damage of the kidney and liver, neurotoxicity, and developmental impacts. Historically, to mitigate against potential risks from pesticide drift, EPA has required buffer zones and application restrictions. However, these have not been sufficient to alleviate off-site crop damage and environmental contamination. Additionally, as demonstrated with these incidents, there are challenges with pesticide product label compliance.

Despite data showing resistance to at least 29 weed species worldwide, Monsanto and other agrichemical companies have insisted on doubling down on their failed technology, opting to create new GE cropping systems that incorporate older, more toxic herbicides. Dicamba has been linked to damage of the kidney and liver, neurotoxicity, and developmental impacts. Another GE cropping system, developed by Dow AgroSciences, relies on the herbicide 2,4-D, a chemical linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL), which is also neurotoxic, genotoxic, and an endocrine disruptor. Both of the herbicides associated with these GE crops remain formulated with glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) identified as carcinogenic to humans, based upon laboratory animal studies. Another issue of concern is synergy, the potential for pesticide mixtures to increase the potency of the formulated product.

Weed resistance is an entirely predictable occurrence in fields where herbicides are sprayed throughout the growing season. Even the use of older, more toxic herbicides will only slow the predictable resistance. Research out of the University of Arkansas was able to create dicamba-resistant palmer amaranth in a greenhouse after only three generations.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach that prohibits hazardous chemical use and requires alternative assessments to identify less toxic practices and products under the unreasonable adverse effects clause of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in the steps of countries like Canada and the European Union by following the precautionary principle, which generally approves products after they have been assessed for harm, not before. Beyond Pesticides suggests an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving.

Source: Center for Food Safety

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 26, 2017) In a startling move that puts independent science at odds with government, the Trump administration’s U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team stated on Wednesday that scientists will now face “an unspecified vetting process before sharing their work outside the agency.” However, this kind of review is at odds with EPA’s own scientific integrity policy, which “prohibits all EPA employees, including scientists, managers, and other Agency leadership, from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”

This comes on the heels of an announcement by the administration several days ago issuing scientific grant and hiring freezes at EPA nationwide, along with effectively banning science communications through social media platforms. According to ProPublica, an EPA employee stated that, “Hiring freezes happen, but freezes on grants and contracts seemed extraordinary.” These grants are used for financial support to complete environmental testing, remediation and environmental improvement projects across the country. Additionally, on Friday, January 20, after Donald Trump was officially sworn in, he ordered a freeze on all pending regulations from the Obama administration. This included the listing of the rusty patched bumblebee as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which had been set to take effect February 10, 2017 and now has an uncertain future.

Independent science is critical to understanding the toxicology of chemicals that are allowed to be introduced into the environment and the food supply. This information is necessary to influence state and local decision makers to act over industry-dominated regulatory decisions that assume the necessity of toxic materials, driven by companies with a vested economic interest.

The ability of publicly-funded scientists to conduct and disseminate unbiased research is a key component to our democracy and to the ability of regulators to effectively protect public health and the environment. In addition to the attempts to attack independent science conducted by government researchers, university scientists have faced criticism and assaults on their work. In an effort to ensure that the essential independent scientific research on pesticides is not thwarted by the chemical industry, Beyond Pesticides launched The Fund for Independent Science. This fund, catalyzed by the 2013 announcement that Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D. lost university funding for his laboratory and research, is set up and run by Beyond Pesticides. Make a pledge today to enable the important research by independent scientists.

Beyond Pesticides serves as a watchdog of federal and state agencies, which institutionalize “acceptable” levels of public exposure to harmful pesticides known to cause chronic health effects, such as cancer, neurological and immune system disorders.

As a representative member of the Environmental/Public Interest stakeholder group of the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC), Beyond Pesticides is able to provide independent advice to EPA that represents the views of Beyond Pesticides and our members. Through this committee, EPA and Beyond Pesticides foster meaningful communication in understanding a wide range of pesticide issues, many of which are scientifically and technically complex. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides continuously sends comments on pesticide policies to \EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as state and local agencies.

In light of the attacks on science and communications with the U.S. public under the new Trump administration, it is important to consider the role that EPA fulfills for the country. EPA began operating in 1970 after President Nixon signed it into law through an executive order, to maintain and enforce national standards for numerous environmental laws, including the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. However, EPA has a long history of registering pesticides without adequately analyzing human and environmental health data.

Beyond Pesticides has for years said that EPA’s general registration process is flawed because the agency does not evaluate whether hazards are “unreasonable” in light of the availability of safer practices or products. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides continues to urge EPA to take a more precautionary approach, given the history of incomplete data or assessments which can lead to mitigation measures decades after widespread pesticide use was approved. With some chronic endpoints, such as endocrine disruption, the agency has not adequately assessed chemicals for certain health risks.

Statements and actions of the Trump administration since taking office will make it increasingly difficult to keep health and environmental protections from backsliding. As implementation of federal environmental and public health law is weakened, the gap in protection grows and increased responsibility falls to local decision makers who can no longer rely on a regulatory system to protect their community’s health, water safety, and environment. We encourage concerned citizens to become part of this public process by contacting your representatives, writing comments to submit to the public docket, and becoming active in local efforts on pesticide reform. By elevating your voice in these ways, you put pressure on government officials to increase citizen safeguards and hold pesticide manufacturers accountable.

Sources: ProPublica, The Hill

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 25, 2017) A study conducted at the University of Buffalo recently revealed a connection between two common insecticides and an increased risk for certain metabolic diseases, including diabetes. Researchers found that by binding to and disrupting melatonin receptors that control numerous physiological functions, chemicals such as insecticides can affect melatonin levels, creating a higher risk for metabolic diseases to develop. The study, Carbamate Insecticides Target Human Melatonin Receptors, was published in Chemical Research in Toxicology and was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.

The implicated chemicals in this research, carbaryl and carbofuran, are notoriously dangerous carbamate insecticides. Carbamates share structural characteristics and an ability to inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE), an enzyme important for the transmission of nerve impulses. When AChE is inhibited, acetylcholine accumulates leading to overstimulation of neurotransmitters, resulting in muscle weakness, confusion, and paralysis, among other symptoms. Carbaryl is said by EPA to be “one of the most widely applied insecticides in the U.S.,” since use began in 1959, with 10-15 million pounds used annually. It is a broad-spectrum insecticide used on a variety of crops, in forestry and on ornamentals, in home gardens, and on livestock and pets. It was recently the subject of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessment on the impact of common pesticides on endangered species, which found that they were “likely to adversely affect” nearly 97% of species listed under the Endangered Species Act. The other chemical the study focused on, carbofuran, a restricted use pesticide, is the most toxic of the carbamate insecticides. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, all registered uses of carbofuran kill wildlife. Carbofuran is also extremely toxic to humans, and in 2009 EPA revoked all food tolerances for the chemical, eliminating allowed residues on domestic and imported foods.

By combining computer modeling on millions of chemicals with standard wet laboratory experiments, researchers found that insecticides, specifically carbaryl and carbofuran, were “structurally similar to melatonin and that both showed affinity for the melatonin MT2 receptors that can potentially affect glucose homeostasis and insulin secretion,” according to Marina Popovska-Gorevski, co-author of the study. She continued, “That means that exposure to them could put people at higher risk for diabetes and also affect sleeping patterns.” Disrupting sleeping patterns, or what is often referred to as the human circadian rhythm, is a mechanism known to put people at higher risk for diabetes, though, according to the authors, the connection is not well understood.

Overall, researchers claim that their findings suggest “a need to assess environmental chemicals for their ability to disrupt circadian activity,” though federal regulators have not yet made this kind of research a priority. For the researchers, this is just one of the first steps in their long term goal to develop a Chem2Risk pipeline, which would assess the toxicity of the nearly 4 million chemicals in their database and allow researchers to gauge the risks each chemical presents for various disease.

“This is the first report demonstrating how environmental chemicals found in household products interact with human melatonin receptors,” says Margarita L. Dubocovich, Ph.D., senior author on the paper and State University of New York (SUNY) Distinguished Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology. “No one was thinking that the melatonin system was affected by these compounds, but that’s what our research shows.”

The connection between common and chronic diseases and exposure to pesticides continues to strengthen, despite efforts to restrict individual chemical exposure or mitigate chemical risks using risk assessment-based policy. Common diseases affecting public health that have been linked to pesticides exposure include asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, and several types of cancer. In order to facilitate access to epidemiologic and laboratory studies based on real world exposure scenarios that link public health effects to pesticides, Beyond Pesticides maintains the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, commonly referred to as PIDD. The scientific literature documents elevated rates of chronic diseases among people exposed to pesticides, with an increasing numbers of studies associated with both specific illnesses and a range of illnesses. With some of these diseases at very high and, perhaps, epidemic proportions, there is an urgent need for public policy at all levels –local, state, and national– to end dependency on toxic pesticides, replacing them with carefully defined green strategies.

The current database, which contains hundreds of studies, is continuously updated. Readers are urged to send studies to [email protected] that you think should be added to the database.

Source: University at Buffalo

All unattributed positions are that of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 24, 2017) An analysis conducted by scientists at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland is calling into question the conclusions reached in a study conducted by multinational chemical company Syngenta, which indicated that honey bees were not at risk from the widely used neonicotinoid insecticide thiamethoxam. The challenge to the Pilling et al 2013 study is important because while many experiments have been performed in the lab or semi-lab environment, this study was a field experiment developed to test pollinator exposure under normal agricultural conditions. The conclusions of such real-world experiments are weighed more heavily by regulators when making safety and use determinations.

St. Andrews’ scientists focus in on the Pilling et al claim that because its study did not have high levels of replication, that it would have been misleading to perform formal statistical analysis. They respond that this would indeed be the case if Pilling et al had intended on finding statistical significance and concluded that there was no effect based on those tests. However, Syngenta’s scientists instead simply graphed average values over time based on their measurements (measurements such as number of bees in a hive, hive weight, number of brood, etc.), and compared these values between pesticide-treated and control (non-treated) colonies. It was this comparison, which Pilling et al viewed as “similar” between treated and control colonies, that was used to determine that thiamethoxam was a low risk to honey bees.

The authors of the St. Andrews’ study assert that Syngenta’s treatment of its data is “not just misleading in this case but also are unacceptable in principle, for if data are inadequate for a formal analysis (or only good enough to provide estimates with wide confidence intervals), then they are bound to be inadequate as a basis for reaching any sound conclusions.” The St. Andrews researchers make clear that Pilling et al could have performed statistical analysis to determine the power of the effects recorded by including confidence intervals in its comparative assessment. After performing this analysis themselves, researchers determined that the Pilling et al estimates were so imprecise that little could be derived from the data. The scientists stated in conclusion, “Given that the data in this case are largely uninformative with respect to the treatment effect, any conclusions reached from such informal approaches can do little more than reflect the prior beliefs of those involved.”

Other independent scientists have also criticized the Pilling et al study for its experimental design, including a 2015 piece in Environmental Sciences Europe, coauthored by a team of scientists including renowned researcher David Goulson, PhD. The authors of this piece find issue with a range of factors in Pilling et al, including the short period of exposure for pesticide-treated honey bees, the use of the pesticide at rates lower than recommended agricultural practice, the use of only one pesticide rather than a commercial product, and the failure to capture important data such as overwintering losses.

Poorly constructed studies and inaccurate or misleading conclusions put scientific integrity at risk for the broader scientific community. For this reason, it remains critical that regulators in both Europe and the U.S. consider both the data and critiques of independent scientists. The totality of the science on thiamethoxam and neonicotinoids in general paints a concerning picture for not only honey bees but a range of wild pollinators throughout the world. While Europe’s moratorium on neonicotinoid application to flowering crops remains in place, and Health Canada recently announced restrictions on the neonicotinoid imidacloprid to protect aquatic invertebrates, EPA recently announced that neonicotinoids present “no significant risks” to honey bees, despite finding a multiple instances where bees were at risk of toxic exposure.

It remains up to concerned residents to take action in response to EPA’s dismissal of the science. By getting active in your local community, fighting to enact BEE Protective policies, local residents can make changes that ripple up to the national level. For more information on taking action to protect pollinators, see Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.

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

Source: Phys.org, University of St Andrews

(Beyond Pesticides, January 23, 2017) Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  released its final Biological Evaluations of Three Chemicals’ Impacts on Endangered Species, which finds that chlorpyrifos and malathion likely have detrimental effect on 97 percent of all species listed and protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while diazinon adversely affects 78 percent. According to EPA’s release on the subject, this is the “first-ever draft biological evaluations analyzing the nation-wide effects” of these registered chemicals on endangered species after decades of widespread use. The evaluations stem from a legal settlement with the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) in which CBD sued EPA in April 2014 for its failure to comply with ESA, which requires the agency to carry out consultations with federal wildlife agencies while registering pesticides.

According to Nathan Donley, Ph.D., a CBD senior scientist, “We’re now getting a much more complete picture of the risks that pesticides pose to wildlife at the brink of extinction, including birds, frogs, fish and plants. When it comes to pesticides, it’s always best to look before you leap, to understand the risks to people and wildlife before they’re put into use. The EPA is providing a reasonable assessment of those risks, many of which can be avoided by reducing our reliance on the most toxic, dangerous old pesticides in areas with sensitive wildlife.”

The next step in this settlement involves both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Along with the evaluations from EPA, the two agencies must issue biological opinions and determine steps to protect these endangered species from agricultural pesticide use. In accordance with the legal settlement, these biological opinions must be finalized by December 2017. Additionally, chlorpyrifos, widely used in agriculture, is awaiting a decision by EPA that, it was thought prior to the new administration, could result in it being banned for use on food crops.

The implicated chemicals are all organophosphates (OPs), derived from World War II nerve poisons that are a common class of chemicals used as pesticides. This class of pesticides affect neurodevelopment, weaken the immune system, and impair respiratory function, among other severe health risks. OPs are a widely used agricultural pesticide, with millions of pounds applied yearly across the country and are acutely toxic to bees, birds, mammals, aquatic organisms and certain species of algae at low doses. OPs method of entry into the environment can vary from pesticide drift, volatilization, and runoff from soil erosion.  Once present in the environment, organisms that come into contact with the pesticides will have difficulty performing basic survival and reproductive functions. A 2014 study by the United States Geological Service determined that an estimated six million pounds of the three chemicals combined are sprayed for agricultural use.

Studies document that exposure to even low levels of OPs during pregnancy can impair learning, change brain function, and alter thyroid levels of offspring into adulthood. In 2012, researchers at the University College London found that long-term low level exposure to organophosphate pesticides cause lasting damage to neurological and cognitive functions. The study notes, “The majority of well-designed studies found a significant association between low-level exposure to [organophosphates] and impaired neurobehavioral function which is consistent, small to moderate in magnitude and concerned primarily with cognitive functions such as psychomotor speed, executive function, visuospatial ability, working and visual memory.” Children have an increased risk from OPs which has led the creation of “no-spray” buffer zone for sensitive areas such as schools and hospitals.

Ultimately, the widespread adoption of organic management is necessary to protect consumers and the environment in the long-term. Beyond Pesticides has long sought a broad-scale marketplace transition to organic practices that, as a default, prohibits the use of toxic synthetic pesticides by law (unless subject to rigorous health and environmental standards and recommended by the National Organic Standards Board) and requires a systems-based approach that is protective of health and the environment. This approach never allows the use of highly toxic synthetic pesticides, such as the toxic organophosphates, and advances a viable, scalable path forward for growing food. Find out more about why organic is the right path forward for the future of farming by going to Beyond Pesticides’ organic agriculture webpage.

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 19, 2017) The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) opened a 60-public comment period January 17 on a controversial proposal to establish a federal research and promotion check-off program that has split the organic community, with many family farmers and small farm operators disagreeing with the larger organic industry groups, represented by the Organic Trade Association (OTA), on the benefits that they will derive from a mandatory payment requirement. The application to USDA for a check-off, originally submitted by OTA in 2015, has drawn sharp division on questions of benefits and cost to farmers. OTA believes that the check-off will generate resources to lift the organic market. This program is different from traditional check-off programs, which promote individual commodities. USDA oversees check-off programs under the Commodity, Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.

According to OTA, the check-off creates an industry-funded promotion, research, and information program for certified organic products, whose overarching goal is to strengthen the position of certified organic products in the marketplace. OTA says this would be achieved by funding research to benefit the organic industry, improving access to information and data across the organic sector, and educating consumers about the benefits of organic, resulting in increased demand for organic products. Under the proposal, funds will be collected from certified organic farmers, handlers, and processors. The program will be led by a board of the same makeup from different geographic regions.

The concerns of opponents, which include a diverse mix of farm and consumer organizations, are represented by the group No Organic Check-Off. The group identifies six problems with the proposed check-off system:

1. This will be just another tax on farmers either directly or indirectly when processors pass the cost down.
2. Want to promote the benefits of organic? You can’t in a check-off. Even something as simple and accurate as “Organic is the Gold Standard,” will not be allowed by USDA.
3. The Check-off system is fundamentally broken for farmers – the federally mandated check-off programs have restrictive guidelines, heavy bureaucracy, lack of accountability and cost of administration.
4. Check-off programs have a history of using check-off funds inappropriately, with poor representation of farmer priorities in granting of research dollars.
5. Commodity check-off programs that are successful see a decline of family farmers in business.
6. Promoting organic sales now will not increase organic acreage in the US but will increase lower priced organic imports.

The proposal will be open for public comment until March 20, 2017. Submit a comment here.

According to the National Agriculture Law Center, checkoff programs “promote and provide research and information for a particular agricultural commodity without reference to specific producers or brands.” They are referred to as “check-off programs” because at their inception they were not mandatory and producers had to mark a check-off box to indicate that they wanted to contribute to the program. Some of the most prominent campaigns to come from these check-off programs include “Got Milk?” “Beef, It’s What’s For Dinner,” and “Behold, The Power of Cheese.”

USDA’s current rules exempt organic producers from participation in conventional check-off programs, since those promotional campaigns make no distinction concerning the quality of the product, health benefits, or methods of production that set organically produced products apart from competitors. USDA says, “Should this proposed rule become final, pursuant to section 10004 of the 2014 Farm Bill, the regulatory language currently exempting organic commodities from assessment by generic commodity promotion programs created under the various commodity promotion laws (7 U.S.C. 7401(e)) shall no longer be in effect. Such commodities would then become “dual-covered commodities”, and persons producing, handling and importing them would need to elect to pay assessments to the commodity-specific program, or the organic commodity promotion program.”

The proposed program will be funded by organic certified producers and handlers whose annual gross sales are in excess of $250,000 paying one-tenth of one percent of net organic sales, with importers paying the same percentage on the transaction value of their certified organic products reported to U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon import. Producers, handlers, and importers that fall below the $250,000 threshold could voluntarily choose to opt in to the program.

The program would also:

• Carry out the bi-partisan directive to expand and make consistent exemptions from commodity promotion programs for all certified-organic producers. Currently only “100% certified organic” producers qualify.
• Enable support of grassroots organic research and marketing.
• Allocate at least 25 percent of the funding specifically for local and regional research.

Critics say that USDA could do more to make the paperwork requirements easier for small organic producers, who should only have to register their exemption once, not annually. The program, called the Generic Research and Promotion Order for Organic, would be run by a 17 member board of directors, independent of OTA. The board would be charged with pursuing educational initiatives and promotional campaigns to help boost demand for organic products by increasing consumer awareness of the benefits of organic food, which OTA believes will benefit everyone in the organic supply chain. OTA maintains that as the demand for organic increases, due to the check-off program, more farmers will be willing to make the switch to organic, which will be crucial to match organic demand in the U.S. Consumer demand for organic in the U.S. already outpaces production. The group, No Organic Check-Off, on the other hand, says that without a plan to support increased acreage moving into organic production, consumers will see more imported organic food in the marketplace.

Critics also say that check-off programs are plagued by a history of mismanagement and abuse. With so many players, there is also worry that the needs of processors and handlers could overshadow those of farmers, who John Bobbe, executive director of the Organic Famer’s Agency for Relationship Marketing (OFARM), says traditionally only receive a small portion of the profit from the ever growing $40 billion organic market. Others wonder about the efficiency of marketing as a way of growing food instead of a specific commodity. “You can be more flexible with your messaging and even more efficient with the dollars if you’re not tied to the government,” said Harriet Behar, senior organic specialist with the Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES).

To address the issue of meeting consumer demand for organic, OTA and USDA announced last week the National Certified Transitional Program, as a partnership. This program will provide “Certification and oversight to producers who are in transition to organic” and will include OTA working with certifiers, manufacturers, and retailers to create a “transitional” label on packaged products.

Beyond Pesticides has long promoted the importance of organic in a sustainable food system, and works to promote the widespread transition of conventional farmland to organic production. Organic law requires farmers adopt an organic systems plan to support soil biology, ecological balance, and pest prevention. Beyond Pesticides provides many opportunities to get involved inprotecting and advancing the integrity of the organic label, and encourages public action to ensure organic’s strong standards remain intact. To find out more about the work Beyond Pesticides is doing on organic integrity, check out Keeping Organic Strong, or to see all the reasons to go organic, visit Eating with a Conscience.

Source: Organic Research, Promotion, and Information Order

All unattributed positions are that of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 18, 2017) Despite science affirming its hazards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has expanded the registration of the toxic herbicide mixture, Enlist Duo, which contains 2,4-D and glyphosate, for use on genetically engineered (GE) cotton and extended its use on GE corn, soybean, and cotton from 15 to 34 states. This approval late last week comes at a time when widespread chemical use is threatening public health and the environment and weed resistance continues to grow, threatening farmers’ productivity and profitability.

Over 600 public comments were submitted to EPA on this issue, with many comments vehemently opposing the current uses and the proposed expansion of uses. In its decision, EPA stated that Enlist Duo “meets the safety standard for the public, agricultural workers, and non-target plants and animal species.” However, as Beyond Pesticides stated in comments to the agency, EPA has not fully considered all the environmental costs, including the cost of tackling increased 2,4-D resistant weeds, crop and non-target damages from uncontrolled drift, as well as unanswered questions regarding synergistic chemical effects in non-plant species. Advocates predict weed resistance to Enlist Duo and have urged EPA to reject its continued use and incentive sustainable organic practices.

Additionally, EPA made a “’No effects’ determination for species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act [ESA].” While a new process for handling ESA consultations was outlined in 2013, EPA continues to bring pesticides to market without adequate data on a chemical’s adverse effects. EPA routinely disregards this requirement, and has been sued numerous times for failing to ensure adequate protections for endangered species.

EPA withdrew its registration approval for Enlist Duo’s use in genetically engineered (GE) crops in November 2015, following an EPA review triggered by manufacturer claims that Enlist Duo ingredients have synergistic effects, which EPA had not initially evaluated. According to EPA, its latest review of the data found no synergistic effects. However, it does not appear that assessments of exposure to both glyphosate and 2,4-D choline have been conducted to properly assess whether synergistic effects can occur in non-plant organisms.

Developed by Dow AgroSciences (Dow), Enlist Duo is an herbicide that incorporates a mix of glyphosate and a new formulation of 2,4-D, intended for use on GE Enlist-Duo-tolerant corn and soybean crops. This herbicide has been marketed as a “solution” for the control of glyphosate-resistant weeds brought on by the widespread use of the chemical on Roundup Ready crops over the last decade that has led to superweeds. The proposed expansion of Enlist Duo presents unreasonable adverse risks to humans and the environment.

Enlist Duo was officially registered in October 2014, and shortly after a lawsuit was filed by Beyond Pesticides and other environmental groups, challenging the approval under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The groups argue that in its approval of Enlist Duo EPA disregarded negative impacts on sensitive species, including nearly two hundred species protected under ESA, from the increased use of the toxic cocktail on crops genetically engineered to withstand its application. In addition to environmental damage, these chemicals have been linked to a myriad of human health problems. 2,4-D has been linked to soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and harm to the reproductive system. Additionally, glyphosate has been classified as a human carcinogen based on laboratory studies by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2015.

In November 2015, EPA revoked the registration of Dow’s Enlist Duo based on new information on the toxic effects associated with the synergistic interactions of the chemical cocktail, including  2,4-D, glyphosate, and other undisclosed ingredients, to plants outside the treated area. In January 2016, the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the revocation in a three-sentence order that gave no reasoning.

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

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

Sources: US EPA, Agri-Pulse

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 17, 2017) On January 12, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released major risk assessment documents on  pollinator exposure to bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides finding no significant risks, despite the large and growing body of science identifying the pesticides’ hazards. In the documents, EPA identifies risks posed to bees by several neonicotinoid insecticides, but suggests that no restriction on uses are imminent. In another decision meant to protect bees from acutely toxic pesticides, the agency is scaling back its original proposal in deference chemical-intensive agricultural interests.

EPA’s long awaited pollinator assessments for the neonicotinoids: clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran, much like the 2016 pollinator assessment release for imidacloprid, identifies risks to bees from the agricultural applications (foliar, soil and seed) of these chemicals, including from pesticide drift. Observed effects include decline in worker bees, and subsequent declines in brood and pollen stores in the colony. EPA‘s assessments continue to focus on honey bees, with cursory mention of wild, native bees. Once again, the assessments did not consider risks from exposures to contaminated water, guttation droplets, or soil, with EPA stating that, “The Agency lacks information to understand the relative importance of these other routes of exposures and/or to quantify potential risks from these other routes, and as such, they are not quantitatively assessed.” Similarly, contaminated dust, produced as a result of the planting of coated seeds, was acknowledged by the agency as a potential source of exposure and risk, as well as the cause of several bee kill incidents. However, once again the agency did not conduct an assessment for this exposure, citing stakeholder work on best management practices to reduce dust.

Pollen and nectar are identified as the major sources of exposure to bees from the neonicotinoids. EPA utilized a new modeling scheme to estimate environmental residues and produce its assessment. The agency also identified on-field risks for certain crops including: for clothianidin  —cucurbit vegetables, citrus and cotton oilseed; for thiamethoxam —fruits, cucurbit vegetables, citrus fruits, berry and small fruit, cotton oilseed; for dinotefuran —stone fruit, cucurbit vegetables, small vine fruit, berries. EPA also released the aquatic assessment for imidacloprid, which found elevated risks to aquatic organisms. This is not surprising as scientific studies show that neonicotinoids adversely affect birds,  aquatic organisms and contaminate soil  and  waterways, and  overall biodiversity.

EPA also released its final Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk to Bees from Pesticide Products, which follows its 2015 proposal to mitigate exposure to bees from acutely toxic pesticides products. In its 2015 document, EPA proposed to restrict foliar applications of pesticides acutely toxic to bees during crop bloom and when managed bees are present. Then, EPA identified over 60 pesticides that are highly toxic to bees for spray restrictions when managed bees were on site. Beekeepers and concerned activists said then that the proposal fell short in protecting bees, especially native bees.

EPA is now scaling back its modest proposal, focusing on reducing impacts on growers. To enable growers to continue using these toxic pesticides, EPA is providing numerous exceptions, including application timing (applications can now be made two hours before sunset and eight hours before sunrise). Further, instead of targeting restrictions on pesticides that are highly acutely toxic to bees based on bee hazard data, EPA is now planning to utilize risk mitigation criteria with a focus on pesticides that have field residual times (RT₂₅) six hours or less. EPA believes this will provide growers with “greater flexibility” to apply pesticides to crops. The agency has recommended label language:

Foliar application of this product is prohibited to a crop from onset of flowering until flowering is complete when bees are under contract for pollination services to that crop unless:

(i) the application is being made to prevent or control a threat to public and/or animal health as determined by a state, tribal, authorized local health department or vector control agency; OR

(ii) the application is being made to from 2-hours prior to sunset until sunrise; OR,

(iii) the application is being made at a time when the temperature at the

application site is 50^oF or less.

Further, at the request of industry-led groups, EPA intends to go back and amend previous neonicotinoid labels that restrict applications under certain conditions with these newly recommended label statements that seem even less protective. The agency states it will begin implementing this policy in 2017 by sending letters to registrants describing steps that must be taken to incorporate the new labeling.

In both the pollinator assessments and “Policy” document, EPA continues to ignore the systemic impacts posed by many of these chemicals, especially the neonicotinoids, which the science has shown are extremely persistent in plants and soil and result in chronic exposures in the environment, continually endangering all pollinators that forage in treated or contaminated areas months and even years after initial application. EPA’s focus on short-term acute impacts from neonicotinoids exemplifies EPA narrow-scope of mitigation and undermines successful pollinator protection.

Systemic neonicotinoid pesticides, as a class of chemicals, move through the plants vascular system and are expressed through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets.  These pesticides, which include imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, have been found by  a growing body of scientific literature  to be linked to pollinator decline in general.  Neonics are associated with decreased foraging  and navigational ability, as well as increased vulnerability to pathogens and parasites as a result of suppressed bee immune systems.

There will be a 60-day public comment period for the new neonicotinoid assessments onece the EPA’s documents are published in the Federal Register. EPA invites public comment on all of these preliminary assessments, and is especially interested in getting input from stakeholders on the new method for assessing potential exposure and risk through pollen and nectar. EPA may revise the pollinator assessment based on comments received, as well as additional data that it anticipates receiving during 2017. The final neonicotinoid risk assessments will be released for public comment by mid-2018.

In light of the shortcomings of federal action to protect these beneficial organisms, it is left to advocates and consumers to ensure safe havens for pollinators by creating pesticide-free habitat and educating others to do the same. Take action by calling on EPA to suspend neonicotinoids now. You can also declare your garden, yard, park or other space as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat. Sign the pledge today! Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The Bee Protective Habitat Guide  can tell you which native plants are right for your region. For more information on what you can do, visit Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protectiv  page.

Source EPA

(Beyond Pesticides, January 13, 2016) Just prior to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcement on January 12 that several neonicotinoid insecticides “do not pose significant risks to bee colonies,” the preprint version of a new review of neonics identified the range of lethal and sublethal effects of the chemicals on non-target organisms.  The review, The Environmental Risks of Neonicotinoid Pesticides: a review of the evidence post-2013, authored by Dave Goulson, PhD, and Thomas James Wood, a PhD candidate, concludes that studies published since the 2013 European Food Safety (EFSA) published risk assessments show even greater risks. The EFSA assessment, which led to a moratorium on neonicotinoid uses, found that certain neonics on specific flowering crops pose a high risk to bees.

With reference to the 2013 EFSA risk assessment conclusions as their baseline, the researchers summarize the difference in risk for certain categories, including:

• “Risk of exposure from and uptake of neonicotinoids in non-crop plants. Uptake of neonicotinoids by non-target plants was considered likely to be negligible, though a data gap was identified. Many studies have since been published demonstrating extensive uptake of neonicotinoids and their presence in the pollen, nectar and foliage of wild plants. Exposure from non-target plants clearly represents a Greater Risk.”
• “Sublethal effects of neonicotinoids on wild bees. Consideration of sublethal effects by EFSA was limited as there is no agreed testing methodology for the assessment of such effects. Exposure to neonicotinoid-treated flowering crops has been shown to have significant negative effects on free flying wild bees under field conditions and some laboratory studies continue to demonstrate negative effects on bee foraging ability and fitness using field-realistic neonicotinoid concentrations. Greater Risk.”

The review also delves into areas of study that were not considered by EFSA, such as the impact of neonicotinoids on environmental health. The researchers compile a range of risks to non-target organisms, including the death of beneficial predator populations, the persistence of neonicotinoids in soils, which leads to constant contamination and accumulation over time, to a higher sensitivity of aquatic organisms to neonicotinoids. The authors make the case that, due to this new evidence demonstrating greater risk to bees and the environment, the current moratorium on imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam in Europe should be extended, and that the partial ban should be expanded to other neonic uses.

This review adds merit to the body of research regarding neonicotinoids and their impacts on pollinators and other non-target beneficial species. Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affects the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. While the issue of pollinator declines is diverse and complex, with many factors potentially contributing to the cause, pesticides have consistently been implicated as a key factor, not only through immediate bee deaths, but also through sublethal exposure. Neonics are associated with decreased learning, foraging and navigational ability, as well as increased vulnerability to pathogens and parasites as a result of suppressed bee immune systems. In addition to toxicity to bees, pesticides like neonicotinoids have been shown to also adversely affect birds, aquatic organisms and contaminate soil and waterways, and overall biodiversity.

In light of the shortcomings of federal action in the U.S. to protect these beneficial organisms, it is left up to us to ensure that we provide safe havens for pollinators by creating pesticide-free habitat and educating others to do the same. Beyond Pesticides has created a small pesticide-free garden at our offices in DC to provide habitat and forage for our local pollinators, including a beehive on site. You too can pledge your green space as pesticide-free and pollinator-friendly. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat. Sign the pledge today. Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The Bee Protective Habitat Guide  can tell you which native plants are right for your region. Beyond Pesticides also advocates the adoption of organic land management practices and policies by local communities.

EPA will open a 60-day public comment period when it publishes in the Federal Register its preliminary risk assessments for clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuranand and new method for assessing potential exposure risks through pollen and nectar.

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

Source: The Environmental Risks of Neonicotinoid Pesticides: a review of the evidence post-2013

(Beyond Pesticides, January 12, 2017) Yesterday marked a monumental event in the fight against pollinator declines, as the rusty patched bumblebee became the first bee species to officially be declared endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). According to FWS, endangered species designations are made when a species is “in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a portion of their range.” Tom Melius, Service Midwest Regional Director for FWS, stated in a press release that, when it comes to this determination, “[FWS’s] top priority is to act quickly to prevent extinction of the rusty patched bumble bee. Listing the bee as endangered will help [the agency] mobilize partners and focus resources on finding ways right now to stop the decline.” Listed yesterday in the Federal Register, the ruling will go into effect February 10, 2017. This is a victory for environmental groups who have fought to protect the rusty patched bumble bee from widespread threats, such as habitat loss and pesticide use.

According to FWS, the rusty patched bumble bee was once widespread across the United States and parts of Canada, but declined dramatically in the 1990s.  Since then, their populations have dwindled and their overall decline is estimated at 91 percent. In its initial assessment, FWS acknowledged that the bumble bee populations considered for this listing have not been reconfirmed since the early 2000s, meaning that currently there may be even less of the species left. Threats to the rusty patched bumble bee include diseases introduced by commercial bumble bees that are not free of pathogens and are released near wild populations. Climate change plays a part, along with habitat loss, from industrial agriculture and development, that decreases wild lands. There is also an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that neonicotinoid insecticides, working either individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators.

In FWS’s press release on the listing, Mr. Melius spoke to the species importance, stating that, “The rusty patched bumble bee is among a group of pollinators – including the monarch butterfly – experiencing serious declines across the country. Why is this important? Pollinators are small but mighty parts of the natural mechanism that sustains us and our world. Without them, our forests, parks, meadows and shrublands, and the abundant, vibrant life they support, cannot survive, and our crops require laborious, costly pollination by hand.”

A class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids have been linked as a key contributor to pollinator decline, affecting the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and eventual death. These pesticides have consistently been implicated not only through immediate bee deaths, but also through sublethal effects that causes changes in bee reproductive, navigation, and foraging function. Pesticide exposure can impair both detoxification mechanisms and immune responses, rendering bees more susceptible to viruses, parasites, and other diseases, and leading to devastating bee losses.

In 2015, a study coauthored by Christopher Connolly, Ph.D., University of Dundee, found that bumble bees exposed to field-relevant levels (2.1 parts per billion) of the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin suffer poor navigation and foraging skills. Clothianidin exhibits an acute effect on the bumble bee’s brain, breaking down the mitochondria in its brain cells. At the time, Dr. Connolly stated, “Our research demonstrates beyond doubt that the level of neonicotinoids generally accepted as the average level present in the wild causes brain dysfunction and colonies to perform poorly when consumed by bumble bees.”

In another study,  Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees, Swedish scientists reported that wild bees and bumble bees foraging in crops treated with a commonly used insecticide seed coating, a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the non-systemic pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin, are  less likely to reproduce when compared to bees in untreated fields, and that bumble bee colonies in treated fields gain less weight. Additionally, fewer wild bees and bumble bees are found in treated fields than in untreated ones.

While it is a victory that FWS has listed the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species, other agencies continue to lag behind when it comes to addressing the threat of pesticides to pollinators. In March 2016, a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that U.S. regulatory agencies are falling short in addressing the multiple threats contributing to declining pollinators. The GAO report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) increase the monitoring of wild, native bees, while U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts thus far on pesticide restrictions (label amendments and restrictions) have been limited and accomplished little to change pesticide exposure patterns to pollinators. GAO identified the need for EPA to develop a plan to assess pesticide risks to a range of bee species beyond honey bees, as current EPA evaluations only use honey bees as a surrogate for wild bee species. Further, the report finds that the impact from exposure to chemical mixtures also needs to be investigated.

Similarly, in February 2016, a United Nation’s assessment of pollinators and the global food supply warned that many species of wild bees, butterflies, and other pollinators are on a dangerous path toward extinction, further threatening the food supply if the human-made causes of these declines are not halted. The assessment found that an estimated sixteen percent of vertebrate pollinators are threatened with global extinction.

For these reasons and many others, Beyond Pesticides works to promote the widespread transition of conventional farmland to organic production. Organic law requires farmers to foster soil health, and create a strategy to deal with pest populations before they become a problem. Because of these factors, many certified organic farms do not need to use organic-compatible pesticides because their required organic systems plan practices increase plant health and pest and disease resiliency through an increased diversity of pest predators.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees, other insects, and birds for pollination, the decline in pollinators due to pesticides, and other human-made causes, demands immediate action. For more on this and what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.

For further information about the decline of the rusty patched bumble bee, you can watch A Ghost in the Making, a short film about the species disappearance.

Source: FWS, Xerces Society

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 11, 2017) Ultra-low doses of glyphosate formulations fed to rats is linked to an increased likelihood of developing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a recently published study in the journal Nature. A lead author of the study, Michael Antoniou, PhD, stated that the findings are “very worrying as they demonstrate for the first time a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption over the long-term and a serious disease.” The findings point to the growing need to eliminate the widespread use of this herbicide, as it has already been implicated in endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, and kidney and liver damage.

The researchers analyzed female rat livers obtained from a previous 2-year study on Roundup toxicity using molecular profiling techniques. These rats were administered Roundup via drinking water at a concentration of 0.1 ppb, which is an allowable level within both the U.S. and the European Union. The molecular analyses conducted by researchers on the internal organs of the rats fed Roundup included testing of liver cell disturbances. Overall, ultra-low dose glyphosate-formulation exposure led to observations of biomarkers also seen in fatty liver disease.

These findings have human health implications “since NAFLD is predicted to be the next major global epidemic,” according to the authors. They continue, “Approximately 20-30% of the population in the United States carry extra fat in their livers. NAFLD is associated with the recent rapid rise in the incidence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome.” There has also been recent research linking other endocrine disrupting chemicals with the development of metabolic syndrome, although additional studies are needed to investigate the role of chronic glyphosate exposure in the development of these risk factors.

Glyphosate, produced by Monsanto, is one of the most popular weedkillers in the U.S., and the active ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet has been shown to have detrimental impacts  on humans and the environment. Given its widespread use on residential and agricultural sites, its toxicity is of increasing concern.

A long-awaited and contentious scientific meeting convened by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate wrapped up its review in mid-December 2016. The 15-member scientific advisory panel was split on their positions, with some considering a “suggestive evidence” classification. The panel’s charge was to evaluate EPA’s recent proposal that the widely used herbicide should be considered “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” despite a 2015 determination from the International Agency for Research on Cancer than glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” with “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity” based on laboratory studies.  The panel now has roughly three months to provide a final recommendation to the agency, which is likely to influence EPA’s final classification of the herbicide.

Debate has also been raging in Europe about the continued use of glyphosate in light of the 2015 classification by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” However, confusion peaked when a few short months later the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its report, finding that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” However, EFSA’s report is limited in that it reviewed glyphosate alone, unlike IARC, which reviewed glyphosate and its formulated products (Roundup) which are more relevant for evaluating risks to human health. The European Commission has since issued a limited license extension for glyphosate, after member states were unable to come to a formal decision.

In addition to IARC’s findings, previous studies have linked the toxicant to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma. In September 2015, a study published in Environmental Health News found that chronic, low-dose exposure to glyphosate  led to adverse effects on liver and kidney health. Roundup formulations can also induce a dose-dependent formation of DNA adducts (altered forms of DNA linked to chemical exposure, playing a key role in chemical carcinogenesis) in the kidneys and liver of mice. Human cell endocrine disruption on the androgen receptor, inhibition of transcriptional activities on estrogen receptors on HepG2, DNA damage and cytotoxic effects occurring at concentrations well below “acceptable” residues have all been observed. Similarly, a study released this year finds that glyphosate can cause changes to DNA function resulting in the onset of chronic disease, including diabetes, obesity, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Given the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or eliminate the use of the widely-used weedkiller, like Tracy Madlener, a mother of two, successfully did last year. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through our Tools for Change page. Consumers and advocates can work to eliminate widespread glyphosate use by buying organic, as this will support an agricultural system that is not reliant on, and in fact never permits the use of glyphosate or any other toxic synthetic pesticides. You can also urge your local grocery store and garden center to stop selling glyphosate, or any product that has ever been sprayed with the chemical. Possibly the most effective move you can make is to get active in your local community. Beyond Pesticides has resources, including a newly released Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform, to help folks concerned about glyphosate take action to reduce and eliminate its use.

Sources: Nature, The Ecologist

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 10, 2017) Exposure to neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides leads to a decrease in pollination frequency and fewer social interactions in bumblebees, according to research published by scientists from Harvard University and University of California, Davis. The study, released last year but presented this week at the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology’s annual meeting, underscores the need for regulators and policy makers to eliminate use of these chemicals, not only to protect honey bees, but also wild pollinators like the bumblebee.

While worker bumblebees (Bombus impatiens) divide their tasks within the colony in a similar manner to honey bees, their nests appear quite different than their more structured cousins. “Bumblebee nests are not the organized, beautiful geometry of the honeybee,” said James Crall, PhD candidate in Harvard’s Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. Instead, “They’re more a hodge-podge of food and larvae in a pile in the middle of the nest space.”

For their study, researchers placed four bumblebee colonies in a mesh enclosed area, tagged each bee, and observed them foraging on tomato flowers grown in a pollinator-excluding greenhouse (to ensure bees had freshly-opened flowers for pollination each day). After observing normal behavior, bees within each colony were then randomly assigned to ingest increasing levels of the neonic imidacloprid (0, 0.0515, 0.515, or 5.15 ng of imidacloprid, respectively). Results show that workers exposed to imidacloprid tend to move toward the outside edge of the nest and spend less time caring for their brood (young).

Pollination by individual workers is also significantly affected by imidacloprid exposure, with pollinating worker bees less likely to resume foraging after being exposed. The morphology of the tomato flower makes it nearly impossible to be successfully pollinated by honey bees. Instead, bumblebees (and certain other wild pollinators) “sonicate,” or buzz tomato plants by producing a vibration that shakes loose the plant’s pollen. But researchers found that even at low and modest doses (0.515, or 5.15 ng) neonic exposure makes pollination significantly less likely.

This study is simply the latest in a robust body of research showing harm to wild and native pollinators from neonicotinoid exposure. A study presented last year at the British Ecological Society’s annual meeting determined that the neonic thiamethoxam makes it more difficult for bumblebees to learn how to sonicate. Compared to a control group, neonic treated bumblebees failed to produce a strong vibration, leading to less pollen collection. The results of these collective studies help confirm research from Scottish investigators published 2015 showing that neonics harm the brain cells of bumblebees.

Scientists have shown that the effects of neonics go beyond the direct impact on pollination skills to the size of neonic-exposed bumblebee colonies. Colonies treated with the neonic clothianidin recorded fewer workers, drones, and reproductive female bees compared to colonies without exposure.

Despite the fact that wild pollinators enhance fruit set in agricultural fields and pollinate more effectively than honey bees, given the widespread and continued use of neonics, it is little wonder why studies have noted that wild pollinators are in decline. In the United Kingdom alone, researchers from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology have linked the use of neonics to the loss of half the country’s wild pollinators.

While this data is critically important in understanding the extent of the current crisis, it is imperative that advocates use this information to press for change. At the federal level, as the Fish and Wildlife Service has eliminated neonic use at national wildlife refuges out of precaution, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represents a stark contrast, doing little to address the impact of these chemicals on undervalued and unprotected wild pollinators. When EPA reviewed the neonic imidacloprid for its impacts to pollinators early last year, the agency only analyzed honey bee health, despite the thousands of other unique, and potentially endangered wild pollinators that are likely to come into contact with these poisons.

Though disquieting for researchers and advocates alike, the fact is that EPA’s decisions are made with considerations beyond the science at hand. In determining whether to restrict a chemical, public input weighs heavily. For those who support pollinator health and want to influence federal decisions on this issue, the best way to increase the pressure is to get active in your local community. Work to pass pesticide policies that protect both honey bees and wild pollinators, as numerous communities (see yellow boxes) have done. For assistance, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected].

More information on protecting wild pollinators where they forage can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind webpage. Also stay tuned to Beyond Pesticides’ new monthly series PolliNATION, which aims to celebrate our less known, but critically important wild pollinators.

Source: Phys.org

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 9, 2017) After the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its recent human health risk assessment for the organophosphate insecticide (OP) tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) on December 21, 2016, the agency announced it was allowing the continued use of the neurotoxic chemical to which children are widely exposed through pets’ flea collars and other flea treatments. According to EPA, ” TCVP is used as a direct animal treatment to livestock (i.e., cattle, horses, poultry and swine) and their premises, in kennels, outdoors as a perimeter treatment, and as a flea treatment [including flea collars] on cats and dogs.”

In its announcement on January 4, 2017, EPA states, “We advise consumers to take certain precautions when handling TCVP products in residential areas. These precautions are listed on TCVP product labels, including:

• not allowing children to play with TCVP pet collar products,
• keeping TCVP spray and powder products out of reach of children, and
• washing hands thoroughly with soap and water after handling.”

Advocates have raised concerns related to similar decisions on flea collars in the past in which EPA has issued warnings to mitigate risks, despite its inability to ensure children’s safety. Children typically come into close contact with pets and their flea collars that cannot be controlled by the type of warning EPA is issuing. Additionally, there is ongoing concern that low level volatility in the home from treated pets in close proximity to family members represents an unacceptable hazard to a neurotoxic pesticide.

TCVP, like other organophosphates, works by inhibiting the enzyme acetylcholinterase. The inhibition leads to the accumulation of acetylcholine and ultimately toxicity to the central and peripheral nervous system. Organophosphates are nerve poisons that cause numbness, tremors, nausea, incoordination, blurred vision, difficulty breathing or respiratory depression, and slow heartbeat. TCVP, while most commonly found in fleas and tick control collars for pets, is used orally and dermally on livestock for flea and tick control. It is formulated in a variety of ways, including dusts, powders, and liquid sprays. Aside from coming into contact with a pet wearing a flea or tick collar, people can be exposed to TCVP via food and water and, as a result of this livestock use, EPA has determined that there is dietary exposure to people. There are also numerous occupational risks of exposure, affecting applicators, veterinarians, pet groomers, and livestock caretakers.

In its review, EPA acknowledges that it does not have all the all the data it needs to assess the affect of exposure to the pesticide on children and therefore has applied an additional 10x margin of safety factor. Advocates have disputed the decision to allow children’s exposure when the data on TCVP’s effects is not complete. EPA said, “For TCVP, as for other OPs, the FQPA safety factor (SF) of 10X has been retained for infants, children, youths, and women of childbearing age for all exposure scenarios due to uncertainty in the human dose-response relationship for neurodevelopmental effects.”This approach to regulating pesticides rejects the precautionary principle, which eliminates use until complete data is available.

The agency review respondt to a 2009 petition filed by Natural Resource Defense Council.  The assessment was finalized by the Health Effects Division (HED) of the EPA as requested by the Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticides Re-evaluation Division. TCVP is a common active ingredient in tick and flea control pet collars, and is part of a class of insecticides called organophosphates, which attack the nervous system.

The previous human health risk assessment was completed in December 2015. The finalized risk assessment reflects a few updates since the 2015 risk assessment. According to EPA, the finalized risk assessment identified risks to people that exceed EPA’s level of concern. These groups include adults and children in residential settings who are exposed to dusts/powder products and pet collars, and workers applying TCVP. One of the more important points of the risk assessment included a reduction of the oral toxicological point of departure (POD) from 8.0 mg/kg/day to 2.8 mg/kg/day. More simply put, researchers identified that, in experiments with rats, observed negative effects from exposure to TCVP occurred at lower doses than previously recorded.

In 2015, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that it intended to list TCVP and two other organophosphate insecticides as cancer-causing chemicals under California’s  Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). If a chemical is listed under Proposition 65, businesses that use this chemical are required by law to inform consumers about potential exposure.

Children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure. They take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults in the food they eat and air they breathe. Their developing organ systems often make them more sensitive to toxic exposure.  The probability of an effect such as cancer, which requires a period of time to develop after exposure, is enhanced if exposure occurs early in life.

The National Academy of Sciences reports that children are more susceptible to chemicals than adults and estimates that 50% of lifetime pesticide exposure occurs during the first five years of life.  The World Health Organization (WHO) cites that over 30% of the global burden of disease in children can be attributed to environmental factors, including pesticides.

While it is important to keep pets and home free of fleas and ticks, Beyond Pesticides recommends talking to your veterinarian about treatment options and asking questions about poisoning incidents associated with any product she or he recommends. Aside from pesticides, pet owners should vacuum daily during flea season with a strong vacuum cleaner, changing the bag often; groom pets with a flea comb daily, using soapy water to dunk and clean the comb between strokes; bathe pets frequently with soap and water; and, restrict pets to a single bed and wash bedding frequently to kill larvae. If you choose to use a flea and tick product on your pet, have it applied by your veterinarian and monitor pets for any signs of an adverse reaction after application. For more information on protecting your pet, read Beyond Pesticides factsheet, Pesticides and Pets: What you should know to keep your pets safe.Also see Beyond Pesticides’ factsheets, Least-Toxic Control of Fleas and Least-Toxic Control of Ticks.

Source: Final Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for Registration Review

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 6, 2017) When it comes to pollination, bees tend to get all of the buzz. While they are crucial to pollinating many crops, it is important to note that bees aren’t the only pollinators working hard to provide the ecosystem services we rely on to support our food system. In fact, one out of every three bites of food we take is made possible by pollinators. In order to raise awareness for the unsung pollinator heroes all around us, Beyond Pesticides created the Polli-NATION Campaign, which highlights the important work of a relatively unknown pollinator each month. With it, we will raise public awareness about these pollinators, their contribution to plant health and productivity and the preservation of natural resources, and the threats they face in their daily lives, including toxic pesticides and habitat loss.

Polli-NATION members include species like butterflies, wasps, flies, beetles, birds, bats, and more. By taking the time to read about our featured Polli-NATION pollinator, you will not only learn about the many diverse species we call pollinators, but also discover what you can do in your daily life to help ensure their survival.

Our pollinator of the month is the bee fly! Over 5,000 species of Bombyliidae (Bee Flies), a large family within the order Diptera, can be found across the globe. While few of these species have been researched in great depth, they all have similarities that tie them to their classification. The vast majority of Bee Fly species have larvae that are parasitoids, and all adults feed on a diet of pollen and/or nectar, making them important pollinators.

Range

Bee Flies have been discovered on every continent but Antarctica. The most diverse group of species can be found in semi-arid and arid (desert) environments such as western North America, southern parts of South America, along the equatorial lines of Africa, and the mid latitudes of Eurasia.

Diet and Pollination

Most Bee Flies in their larval stage are parasitoids to the larvae of other soil-inhabiting insects. As opposed to parasites, which usually live off their host, but do not always cause death, parasitoids like the Bee Fly always kill their host. According to the World Catalog of Bee Flies, larvae of some Bombyliidae species prey on major agricultural pests, such as locusts, grasshoppers, armyworms, slugs, and caterpillars. However, select species have been found to be parasitoids of other pollinators like solitary bumblebees. And a small number species of Bee Fly larvae simply prey on insect eggs.

Most adult Bee Flies, once fully mature, feed on nectar from a variety of native flowering plants. Females are required to consume pollen in order to provide the protein and nourishment necessary for the development of eggs and reproduction. Bee Flies are thought to be responsible for what are called “pollination syndromes,” meaning many native flowering plants coevolved and adapted with Bee Flies.

Physiology

Adult Bee Flies are adapted for a pollen and nectar diet, and their physiology shows it. They have small bodies which range in length from 1mm to 2.5cm, depending on the species. Their wingspan can be as small as 1.5mm, though larger species can have a span of more than 60mm.  Many species utilize biomimicry, in terms of their coloration, often resembling bees (hence their common name as the Bee Fly) or wasps. This offers them protection, as their predators assume that they have the temperament of a more aggressive species. Nonetheless, some species simply have a solid coloration of grey or rusted brown. Bee Flies’ wings appear swept back when at rest, and their legs are generally long and skinny compared to their body, with bristles at the ends. Many Bee flies are equipped with a very long proboscis (tubes that enable them to lap up nectar) that allows them to collect nectar from flowers with long narrow floral tubes. The Bee Flies’ proboscis is fixed, and cannot be retracted, giving it a tusk-like resemblance.

Ecological Role

Bee flies play an important ecological role as pollinators, particularly for flowering desert plants in the U.S. Southwest. Although the Bombyliidae family is understudied, the World Catalog of Bee Flies notes that because many flowering plants require Bee Fly pollination in order to propagate, some endangered plant species are likely reliant on the conservation of certain bee fly species. In addition to providing valuable pollinator services as adults, as noted earlier, Bee Fly larvae can play an important role in pest control. In addition to controlling agricultural pests like slugs and locusts, some species prey on the tste fly, which are infamous for their ability to transmit human diseases like trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness.

Threats to Existence

A literature review by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) notes, “At any single locality a population of bee flies may be considered to be endangered, but throughout the desert areas they may not appear to be so because of their apparent wide distribution.” Because their interaction between specific flowers and certain Bee Fly species is so closely intertwined, habitat loss represents a significant threat to the Bombyliidae family. BLM’s literature review provides an example of the importance of maintaining habitat in the Algodones Dunes near Imperial County, CA. Areas open to recreational vehicles like ATVs resulted in the loss of a majority of flowering plants. While Bee Fly numbers in these areas became locally extinct, areas adjacent to the recreational area maintained their population numbers.

Pesticides, particularly persistent, systemic neonicotonoid insecticides, also represent a serious threat to many Bombyliidae species. Because many species feed on agricultural pests, they are more likely to be exposed to pesticides in these areas. Although the impacts of neonicotinoids and other pesticides on wild pollinator species are understudied when compared to investigations on honey bees, research that has been performed is cause for concern.

How to Protect the Species

There are a few simple ways to protect Bee Fly populations. Providing habitat by planting native flowers is an important first step for Bombyliidae conservation. Providing native habitat is especially important for individuals in arid or semi-arid regions of the U.S. Southwest, and these flowers are relatively easy to maintain as they do not require a lot of water and there is plentiful sun.

It is also critical to avoid planting any seeds or flowers that may be coated in pollinator-toxic neonicotinoids, as these chemicals can undermine your intent to provide forage and habitat for wild pollinators. See Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Friendly Seed and Nursery Directory as a starting place. And for more information, see the webpage on Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind. You can also get active in your community to protect these pollinators by holding native planting days in the spring, and advocating for changes to community pesticide policies. Lastly, by buying organic, you can support an agricultural system that eschews the use of toxic pesticides like neonicotinoids that harm native pollinators.

For more information on how you can get involved in pollinator conservation throughout the nation, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective webpage.

For citations on this information, see our Polli-NATION webpage.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 5, 2017) Winegrowers in the Texas High Plains region are concerned that approval of new herbicides by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will devastate their profitable industry due to chemical damage from pesticide drift. Wine producers in this region of Texas have witnessed chemical damage to their vineyards that they blame on the toxic herbicides, dicamba and 2,4-D, used on cereal crops and pastures on surrounding agricultural land. A new herbicide formulation containing dicamba, XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology, was approved by EPA, and the agency has recently proposed to register and expand the use of Enlist Duo, a herbicide that contains 2,4-D. EPA’s final decision on registration of Enlist Duo is expected in early 2017.

According to Paul Bonarrigo, owner of Messina Hof Winery in Texas, the “approval of these formulations will wind up affecting every vineyard up there.” This will have ramifications across Texas, as the wine industry contributed $1.88 billion to the state’s economy in 2013. Advocates say that the new herbicide formulations present unreasonable adverse risks to humans and the environment in addition to harming the livelihood of farmers.

Following on these concerns, Garrett Irwin, owner of Cerro Santo vineyard, stated,“If we get the levels of damage that I’m afraid we’ll get, vineyards will not be able to recover or produce grapes at any sustainable level, and we’re just going to have to go away.”

The recently registered formulation of dicamba, XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology, developed by Monsanto, is used in the production of genetically engineered (GE) cotton and soybean crops. Dicamba has been linked to kidney and liver damage, neurotoxicity, and developmental impacts, and has been at the center of many recent controversies. In August, farmers in Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee confronted widespread crop damage and braced for lower yields as a result of agrichemical giant Monsanto’s botched roll-out of GE soybean and cotton crops. The company, whose herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) is failing to control weeds in its glyphosate-tolerant crops throughout the U.S. and across the globe, developed a new line of soybean and cotton with traits that make it tolerate applications of dicamba. In October, EPA launched a criminal investigation at several locations in Missouri into the illegal spraying of dicamba, which resulted in drift and off-site damages.

Developed by Dow AgroSciences (Dow), Enlist Duo is an herbicide that incorporates a mix of glyphosate and a new formulation of 2,4-D, intended for use on GE Enlist-Duo-tolerant corn and soybean crops. In addition to Enlist Duo’s widespread use on corn and soybeans, EPA has proposed extending its use on GE-cotton and expanding its approval to 19 additional states. This herbicide has been marketed as a “solution” for the control of glyphosate-resistant weeds brought on by the widespread use of the chemical on Roundup Ready crops over the last decade that has led to super-weeds.

But even if farmers using these toxic herbicides follow the label instructions, there is high likelihood of drift from changing wind direction or speed, and temperature or humidity fluctuations. Claims of Enlist Duo’s lower volatility has limited application to field realities, given different environmental and application variables that play a part in whether the chemical will remain on site or travel off site. And, according to Garrett Irwin, “Complaints about drift damage from off-label spraying filed with the department are fruitless. The department usually responds to complaints by sending a field expert to assess the damage and interview neighbors about the herbicides they use, but neighbors who unlawfully spray are almost never investigated.”

The problem facing Texan winegrowers is not unique to grapes. Pesticide drift is an inevitable problem of pesticide application, and drift and subsequent crop injury to broadleaf crops has been a frequent problem. Abnormal leaf growth, floral development, reduced yield, and reduced quality have all been observed from dicamba drift in particular. A study published by Pennsylvania State scientists in late 2015 found dicamba drift was “frequently responsible for sublethal, off-target damage” to plants and insects. Historically, to mitigate against potential risks from pesticide drift, EPA has required buffer zones and application restrictions. However, these have not been sufficient to alleviate off-site crop damage and environmental contamination. Additionally, as demonstrated with these incidents, there are challenges with pesticide product label compliance and enforcement.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach that prohibits hazardous chemical use and requires alternative assessments to identify less toxic practices and products under the unreasonable adverse effects clause of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in the steps of countries like Canada and the European Union by following the precautionary principle, which generally approves products after they have been assessed for harm, not before. Beyond Pesticides suggests an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving.

Sources: Texas Tribune, Rivard Report

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

(Beyond Pesticides, January 4, 2017) The New Year saw its first pesticide-related tragedy yesterday when four children, ranging in age from 7-17, died from a toxic pesticide treatment on their house in Amarillo, Texas. The pesticide at issue, aluminum phosphide, was illegally applied under a mobile home where at least ten people were living. The chemical, classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a restricted use pesticide (RUP), is restricted for use by certified applicators (and those under their supervision) and it is a violation to use it within 100 feet of residential structures. CNN reports that a family member used water to try and wash away the pesticide after it was applied, and the combination of water and aluminum phosphide increased the release of toxic phosphine gas.

The incident demonstrates the deficiency of managing risks of highly toxic chemicals by labeling them “restricted use.” It has been Beyond Pesticides’ position that chemicals with aluminum phosphide’s level of toxicity should not be available on the market, even with restrictions. In making regulatory determinations on pesticide allowances, advocates have urged EPA to calculate the reality of misuse and accidents, instead of assuming 100% compliance with product label instructions. With this approach, the agency would not register pesticides as highly toxic as aluminum phosphide. Similarly, Beyond Pesticides has argued that the registration of chemicals like aluminum phosphide is “unreasonable” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), given the availability of alternative methods and products for rodent control.

FIFRA allows EPA to register a pesticide that “when applied in accordance with its directions for use, warnings and cautions and for the uses for which it is registered, or for one or more of such uses, or in accordance with a widespread and commonly recognized practice, may generally cause, without additional regulatory restrictions, unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” –if it classifies the pesticide as “restricted use.” RUPs may be legally used only by certified applicators or someone acting under the direct supervision of a certified applicator. Although certified commercial applicators must demonstrate proficiency, certified private applicators may only be required to attend training.

First responders arrived at the home after receiving a call that many members of the family had fallen ill, but by the time they arrived it was too late for the children, as one was dead at the scene and the three others died shortly after being rushed to the hospital. Children generally are more susceptible to chemical exposure than adults because they take in more pesticides relative to their body weight and have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable and less able to detoxify toxic chemicals. In 2010, two young girls aged 4 and 18 months died in Utah after being exposed to the same poisonous gas when aluminum phosphide was used on their lawn to treat a rat infestation. For more information on how pesticide exposure can affect children more acutely than adults, see our fact sheet Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix. The incident is currently being reported as an accidental poisoning.

Aluminum phosphide and other phosphide fumigants are known to be highly acutely toxic when ingested or inhaled, and aluminum phosphide is listed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the Toxicity Category I, which is the highest and most toxic category. Symptoms of mild to moderate acute exposure include nausea, abdominal pain, tightness in chest, excitement, restlessness, agitation and chills. Symptoms of more severe exposure include, diarrhea, cyanosis, difficulty breathing, pulmonary edema, respiratory failure, tachycardia (rapid pulse) and hypotension (low blood pressure), dizziness and/or death. Aluminum and magnesium phosphide fumigants are used primarily to control insects in stored grain and other agricultural commodities. They also are used to control burrowing rodents in outdoor agricultural and other non-domestic areas. The fumigants are restricted to use by specially trained pesticide applicators.

In recent years, EPA has taken steps to try and address the clearly inadequate regulations regarding phosphide fumigants, but the recent death of these four children indicates that they need to revisit the current rules. In 2010, EPA imposed new restrictions on aluminum and magnesium phosphide products in an attempt to better protect people, especially children, from dangerous exposures. The restrictions prohibit, by requiring it be included on product labels, all uses of the products around residential areas and increase buffer zones for treatment around non-residential buildings that could be occupied by people or animals from 15 feet to 100 feet. However, the latest incident raises concerns about the adequacy of the pesticide’s label restrictions to actually protect human lives, and the enforceability of the rules when violations occur.

Beyond Pesticides advocates defined integrated pest management (IPM) for structural pest prevention and the utilization of non-toxic methods to manage rodents. If defined clearly, IPM eliminates toxic pesticide use and exposure to any toxic products. Sanitation, structural repairs, mechanical and biological control, pest population monitoring, and occupant education on eliminating pest conducive conditions are some IPM methods that prevent or control rodents and insects.

EPA recognizes that the use of toxic chemicals to control rodents is itself not effective rodent management. IPM practices are recommended by EPA for rodent control in and around households. EPA advises that effective rodent control requires sanitation, rodent proofing, and removal of rodent harborage, habitat modification to make an area less attractive to rodents, and discourage new populations from recolonizing the area. Non-chemical devices such as snap traps and other trapping systems are also affordable and quite effective as a method for rodent control.

However, while EPA recognizes that IPM practices are safe and effective methods for controlling rodents, the dependency on the rodenticides as a means of control continues. Given that EPA acknowledges that effective rodent management will not be achieved without the adoption of safer IPM techniques, it is imperative that these practices are promoted to the consumer so that efforts can work toward the elimination of public and environmental exposures to low levels of toxic rodenticides. To do this, rodenticide labels must require the users to establish IPM practices and only allow the introduction of poisons as a part of this approach as a last resort.

For more information on rodenticides and the alternatives to managing rodents, see Beyond Pesticides fact sheet “Rodents Teach Lesson of Failed Chemical Controls: City officials gather to learn new approaches to rodent management less dependent on chemicals, more focused on habitat reduction.” For least toxic control of mice and other pests visit Beyond Pesticides’ alternatives page.

Source: CNN

All unattributed positions are that of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, January 3, 2017)  A study published in December 2016 in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, entitled The Effect of Atrazine on Louisiana Gulf Coast Estuarine Phytoplankton, finds that phytoplankton in estuaries in close proximity to agricultural operations are less productive than phytoplankton in an uncontaminated environment. The study examines three different estuaries of the Mississippi river in Louisiana and also evaluates microcosms with different concentrations of atrazine. Phytoplankton, incredibly important to estuary ecosystems and aquatic life, are an integral part of the aquatic food web and ultimately critical to the wild seafood market. As photosynthetic microorganisms, phytoplankton harness the sun’s energy for metabolism and create as a byproduct of photosynthesis dissolved oxygen, which oxygen-breathing sea life require.

For the study, the researchers created microcosms, or large containers that are able to closely mimic ecosystems, so that they can observe the effects of independent variables. On average, phytoplankton in the microcosms are less productive at producing chlorophyll a in the presence of atrazine. The microcosm study design is important because it is difficult to separate and measure the effects of chemicals like atrazine in the environment, given the range of potential causes of phytoplankton decline. A variety of factors, like freshwater discharge rates, precipitation, and seasonal changes, make it difficult to adequately measure the variables that affect phytoplankton populations. The researchers call for a long-term study to gain a greater understanding of the scope of the atrazine contamination problem. The ongoing concern of the researchers is driven by the fact that the herbicidal properties of atrazine could have similar effects on phytoplankton as it does on terrestrial plants, since they both rely on photosynthesis for metabolism.

Atrazine is the second-most widely used pesticide in the United States, with over 73 million pounds applied to agricultural fields each year. Once applied to farms, precipitation and other factors cause the chemical to runoff into surrounding streams and groundwater aquifers. In 2012, water utilities settled a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of atrazine, Syngenta, to clean up atrazine contamination of its treated water.

Even at levels established as “safe” or acceptable by EPA drinking water standards, atrazine is linked to endocrine-disrupting effects. EPA is not adequately assessing the effects of atrazine by using high dose testing models, which are not appropriate for hormonally-active substances that often show effects at minute doses of endocrine disruptors. Studies by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley,  and others have shown that concentrations as little as 0.1ppb impact hormone function in organisms and turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites — organisms  with both male and female sexual characteristics. Research also finds that atrazine interferes with mammary gland development in the breast of mammals and is linked to certain birth defects  like gastroschisis and choanal atresia, which are significantly increased for pregnant women with high levels of atrazine exposure in agricultural areas and from urban streams. The European Union and many countries have banned atrazine, however EPA continues to put U.S. citizens and the environment in harm’s way, allowing nonstop use of this toxic chemical.

in April 2016, EPA released a draft ecological risk assessmen that finds atrazine poses unacceptable risks  to fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and even birds, reptiles and mammals. The assessments evaluated risks to animals and plants, including amphibians, birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic plant communities, and terrestrial plants. EPA concludes, “aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is potential chronic risks to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrate in these same locations. In the terrestrial environment, there are risk concerns for mammals, birds, reptiles, plants and plant communities across the country for many of the atrazine uses.” Levels of concerns were exceeded by as much as 200-fold for some organisms!

The phytoplankton study is another reminder that atrazine is proven to have an effect on aquatic ecosystems. In July 2016, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that atrazine, its chemical cousins propazine and simazine, and its breakdown triazine compounds would be added to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of the state’s Proposition 65.

The evidence is clear. Atrazine harms wildlife, persists in soils, and moves easily through waterways. Take Action: Sign the petition to urge EPA to end the use of atrazine. In order to protect human and ecological health, the agency should take immediate action to eliminate this chemical from our environment!

Source: The Effect of Atrazine of Effect of atrazine on Louisiana Gulf Coast Estuarine Phytoplankton