(Beyond Pesticides, October 30, 2018) The conclusion of a recent population-based cohort study of 68,946 French adults brings promising, though perhaps predictable, news. Greater consumption of organic food — as opposed to food produced conventionally, with use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers — is associated with a reduction in overall cancer risk, and reduced risk of specific cancers, namely, postmenopausal breast cancer and lymphomas. The NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort Study was published on October 22 in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. It is important to remember that correlation is not causation; but the findings were strong enough that researchers concluded that more research is not only warranted, but also, could “identify which specific factors are responsible for potential protective effects of organic food consumption on cancer risk.”

The project tracked subjects — who were 78% female and 44.2 years old, on average — for 4.5 years. Those subjects reported the frequency of their consumption of 16 organic food products as “never, occasionally, or most of the time.” Those included: fruits, vegetables, soy-based products, dairy products, meat and fish, eggs, grains, legumes, breads, cereals, flour, vegetable oils, condiments, ready-to-eat meals, cookies, chocolate, sugar, marmalade, dietary supplements, and some beverages (coffee, teas, and wine). An organic food score was then computed and assigned to each subject.

Annual follow-ups screened for first-incident cancer diagnoses in the study’s subjects. Results showed that a higher “organic” score was positively correlated with overall decreased cancer risk, and lower risk of developing those specific cancers previously mentioned; no association was detected for other types of cancer. The study controlled for multiple confounding factors, including sociodemographics, lifestyle, and dietary patterns.

The researchers note that environmental risks for cancer include pesticide exposure, whether direct (for pesticide applicators and handlers, e.g.) or through the other primary vector, which is diet. They go on to say, “Epidemiological research investigating the link between organic food consumption and cancer risk is scarce, and, to the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to evaluate frequency of organic food consumption associated with cancer risk using detailed information on exposure. . . . Among the environmental risk factors for cancer, there are concerns about exposure to different classes of pesticides. . . . The role of pesticides for the risk of cancer could not be doubted given the growing body of evidence linking cancer development to pesticide exposure. While dose responses of such molecules or possible cocktail effects are not well known, an increase in toxic effects has been suggested even at low concentrations of pesticide mixtures.”

The Los Angeles Times reports, “At least three [pesticides] — glyphosate, malathion and diazinon — probably cause cancer, and others may be carcinogenic as well, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer.” Foods grown or produced organically are far less likely to harbor such pesticide residues (than is conventionally grown produce) because the National Organic Standards forbid use of virtually all synthetic pesticides, except the few that meet the standards of the Organic Foods Production Act. Unsurprisingly, people who consume a relatively “organic” diet have lower levels of pesticide residues in their urine. One of the key points made by the study authors is this: “If the findings are confirmed [by future research], promoting organic food consumption in the general population could be a promising preventive strategy against cancer.”

The health advantages of organic agricultural production for workers and consumers — compared with conventional agriculture, which uses toxic pesticides and synthetic, petrochemical inputs — are legion. There is a strong case that a switch to a generally organic diet confers not only some protection from development of any number of pesticide-induced diseases and other harmful impacts via, e.g., endocrine disruption and subsequent dysregulation and dysfunction, but also, other significant health benefits because it reduces the body burden of toxic chemicals.

One ready example is the evidence for pesticides’ impacts on sperm quality. The ongoing global drop in fertility is strongly associated with pesticide exposures. A 2015 study demonstrated that eating produce containing pesticide residues adversely affects men’s fertility, leading to fewer and poorer quality sperm — adding to a growing body of research showing impaired reproductive function. The results of that study also underscore the importance of an organic diet in reducing pesticide exposures. Interestingly, a fairly old Danish study (1994), published in The Lancet, showed “unexpectedly high sperm density in members of an association of organic farmers, who manufacture their products without use of pesticides or chemical fertilisers. This is of interest in the light of evidence that indicates a world-wide decrease trend of sperm density in the general population.”

The benefits of organic are perhaps most dramatic for children, whose pesticide exposures come largely through diet (unless they live on or near conventionally managed farms), although they may also be exposed via school or recreational properties. Children are particularly vulnerable to pesticide impacts because their brains, organs, and reproductive systems are still developing. One study showed near-immediate benefit when kids’ diets were switched to organic — their urine showed lowered-to-undetectable pesticide levels within hours of the switch. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a report that said, “In terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.”

Beyond Pesticides advocates choosing organic because of the health and environmental benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. See more on the benefits of organic agriculture, and an overview of organics.

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

Sources: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2707948 and http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-organic-food-cancer-20181022-story.html

(Beyond Pesticides, October 29, 2018) Protect the integrity of the organic standard setting process that determines whether a synthetic substance will be allowed in food labeled organic. Help stop an attack on the meaning of the organic label in the Farm Bill, which may be voted out of conference committee by the end of November. By changing the substance review process, a provision will open the floodgates to allowed synthetic chemicals in organic production, handling, and processing under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). OFPA incorporates values and principles that build and regenerate soil, protect pollinators and biodiversity, eliminate toxic pesticide use, and contains a default provision that strictly limits synthetic chemicals in certified organic products. This will all change with the Farm bill amendment.

Ask your U.S. Representative and Senators to tell Farm Bill conferees to reject Section 10104(e) National Organic Standards Board in the Senate Farm Bill (S.3042), a provision that will increase the use of synthetic substances in organic food production.

OFPA incorporates language that ensures that the process for allowing synthetic chemicals in organic production, handling, and processing is very rigorous. This meets a public expectation that food labeled organic is subject to a higher degree of scrutiny than food produced by chemical-intensive agriculture. This distinguishes food labeled under OFPA from food produced with pesticides registered under the pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

If synthetic materials are allowed in organic production, they, by law, are subject to a no adverse effects standard, a cradle-to-grave analysis, a determination of essentiality (necessity) of the material, and a sunset clause that subjects allowed synthetics to a rigorous reevaluation every five years. This time-limited sunset contains a default assumption that continued allowance of the synthetic substance will not be permitted unless the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) votes decisively to recommend its continued allowance to the Secretary of Agriculture.

OFPA implements a belief that organic growers will continue to adopt methods not dependent on outside inputs –that there would be continuous improvement. At the same time, the NOSB’s deliberations on the allowance of a synthetic substance is informed by new science as it emerges and is reviewed in Technical Review documents prepared for the NOSB. By design, this process contrasts dramatically with the allowance of pesticides under FIFRA, where once a decision is made to allow a chemical, it is extremely difficult or virtually impossible to reverse that decision without serious political or public pressure –typically as a result of a crisis or litigation. The continued allowance of a synthetic chemical under organic law is subject to the same rigorous review that was conducted when the substance was first permitted on the National List, which requires that two-thirds of the board must vote to list. As intended by Congress, this review process repeats at the end of a five-year cycle, when the board again must vote by two-thirds to relist the synthetic chemical, under current statutory language.

A Change in NOSB Process will Weaken Oversight of Synthetic Chemicals in Organic Production. This Senate Farm Bill provision brings uncertainty to the five-year sunset process and undermines a basic tenet of the law. Without this sunset provision, synthetic materials may remain on the National List and attempts to introduce alternative materials and find new creative management practices will be disincentivized.

The Senate provision [Section 10104(e) National Organic Standards Board] may seem like it does not do anything (changes in law always do something, whether intended or not): “Any vote on a motion proposing to amend the national list shall be considered to be a decisive vote that requires 2/3 of the votes cast at a meeting of the Board at which a quorum is present to prevail.” A likely interpretation of this provision is that any change to the National List is an amendment to the list (or amends the national list) requiring a 2/3 vote to make a change – whether taking the synthetic off or putting it on the National List. However, OFPA as written has been historically implemented with the default assumption that synthetic materials come off the list after five years unless the board votes decisively (2/3) to keep it on the list.

This NOSB process has worked for two decades to help grow the organic sector to a $53 billion industry with public trust in a rigorous review process. With the erosion of this basic tenet of the law under the Senate Bill provision, consumer trust in the USDA organic label is seriously threatened by an inability to remove synthetic materials shown to be hazardous or unnecessary.

Ask your U.S. Representative and Senators to tell Farm Bill conferees to reject Section 10104(e) National Organic Standards Board in the Senate Farm Bill (S.3042), a provision that will increase the use of synthetic substances in organic food production.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2018) California Superior Court Judge Suzanne Bolanos is upholding a jury’s verdict that exposure to the herbicide glyphosate caused school groundkeeper Dewayne Johnson to develop cancer. The ruling comes after concern that Judge Bolanos would intervene and overturn the entire monetary award to Mr. Johnson. However, in her final ruling, the Judge decided only to reduce the punitive damages to the same amount the jury awarded in compensatory damages, $39 million. This ruling reduced the total amount awarded to Mr. Johnson from $289 million to $78 million.

While attorneys for Mr. Johnson are disappointed in the reduction, they are pleased that the judge did not take further action. “Although we believe a reduction in punitive damages was unwarranted and we are weighing the options, we are pleased the court did not disturb the verdict,” Diana McKinley, Mr. Johnson’s spokeswoman, told the Associated Press (AP). Bayer, which finalized its merger with Monsanto earlier this year, is vowing to continue its nationwide defense against the over 8,000 cases the company inherited from its former rival currently working their way through the courts.

A tentative ruling from Judge Bolanos earlier this month indicated that she thought the jury had gone too far in awarding such a high amount in punitive damages, which were based on the jury’s viewpoint that Monsanto ignored research showing cancer risks from glyphosate products. This resulted in a rare public rebuttal from jurors, which urged Judge Bolanos to maintain their decision. In a letter to the judge obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, juror Robert Howard indicated that the prospect that “our unanimous verdict could be summarily overturned demeans our system of justice and shakes my confidence in that system.”

However, when issuing her final ruling, Judge Bolanos indicated that jurors had the right to reject Monsanto’s witnesses in favor of those presented by plaintiffs. “Thus, the jury could conclude that Monsanto acted with malice by consciously disregarding a probable safety risk,” the judge wrote.

In late September, Bayer asked the court to either reverse the verdict, reduce, the award, or grant a new trial for the company. Based on the recent ruling, rather than ask for a new trial, the company plans to appeal the verdict.  Legal experts don’t expect the company to settle any of the trials until there are a large number of unfavorable verdicts across the country, according to AP.

Mr. Johnson worked for the Benicia Unified School District where he applied Roundup and Ranger Pro 20 to 30 times a year. He developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at the age of 42 in 2014.

Roundup and Ranger Pro contain the active ingredient glyphosate, which was determined by the World Health Organization in 2015 to be a ‘probable human carcinogen’ with sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity based on laboratory studies. Glyphosate has been linked to a host of problems in addition to cancer, including endocrine disruption, reproductive impacts, and kidney and liver damage. Even more concerning is the fact that regulators throughout the world equate glyphosate and its formulated products like Roundup as one in the same. Regulators, including the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, made determinations counter to the WHO cancer classification based on a review of glyphosate alone. However, WHO and independent scientific research have shown that formulated glyphosate products like Roundup and Ranger Pro contain highly toxic ‘inert’ ingredients like polyethoxylated tallowamine (POEA), which has been shown to kill human cells.
Because regulatory agencies only test active ingredients, and don’t test formulated products and combinations of active and inert ingredients, WHO’s determination is based on a much more robust body of scientific literature than any determination made by a government agency.

For more information about the health effects of glyphosate and its formulated products, see Beyond Pesticides’ glyphosate fact sheet. And for a comprehensive, centralized source of information about Bayer’s Monsanto trial, see our initial coverage of the ruling, which includes transcripts, expert presentations, exhibits, court documents, and further resources.

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

Source: Associated Press

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2018) A study published last month in Scientific Reports finds that eating sunflower pollen significantly reduces protozoan infection in bumblebees. Studying ecosystem services and what she calls “floral rewards,” evolutionary ecologist Lynn Adler, Ph.D. at the University of Massachusetts Amherst says sunflowers may provide a long sought after solution for improving bees’ immune system response to both disease and parasites.

The researchers studied the protozoan Crithidia bombi, a common parasitic infection of bumble bees, known to impair learning and foraging, shorten lifespan and destabilize colony hierarchies by impacting queen bee behavior. From the outset of the study, Dr. Adler says, “the more sunflowers were grown at the farm, the lower the Crithidia load for the bees at that farm.” Knowing pollinators eat pollen as a source of protein and healthy fats, Dr. Adler hypothesized that both pollen and nectar might have medicinal effects against disease and parasites. However, her experiment did not show consistent results with nectar.

After bees in the lab were starved for 4-6 hours, researchers fed individual worker bees from small colonies a drop of fructose fluid containing 6,000 Crithidia cells, being the approximate concentration bees may encounter in the wild while foraging. After administering the infection, researchers randomly assigned bees to one of four pollen diets: sunflower, buckwheat, or rapeseed, as well as a fourth mix of all three, thus comparing monofloral diets to more natural integration of pollen sources found in the wild. Ensuring samples were free from contaminants, pollen samples were analyzed for 213 pesticides and other agrichemicals. One week after bees were first infected, researchers measured the change to Crithidia infection intensity in the insects.

Though mortality was not different for bees receiving the different treatments, researchers found all bees exhibited improved reproduction success when fed sunflower pollen. In addition, the bees’ Crithidia infection was significantly reduced, suggesting sunflower pollen, as opposed to nectar, has far more concentrated defensive chemicals, and, therefore, can have broad anti-parasitic effects.

However, noting sunflower pollen is not a silver bullet, Dr. Alder indicates that, “Bees do not do well eating just sunflower, but it may be part of a solution. They are going to need other and varied food for their health. . .[Nevertheless,] incorporating [sunflowers] into pollinator gardens is a simple thing we can do to help bees.”

The causes of pollinator decline are multiple and complex: pests and diseases, diet and nutrition, genetics, and habitat loss are all contributors to pollinator decline, according to the 2012 Congressional Research Service report. However the science is clear that systemic pesticides, like the neonicotinoid class of insecticides, are having the greatest effect in depressing pollinator populations. As long as there has been pesticide-intensive agriculture, bees and other pollinators have encountered substantial health risks during and after crop pollination, highlighting a persistent flaw in the U.S. approach to pesticide regulation.

Even interspersing clover into managed landscapes and urban green spaces is shown to add high quality nutritional diversity to the pollen diets of foraging bees in hopes a varied pollen diet reduces susceptibility to pesticide stress and improves resistance to pesticides that affect multiple generations. A 2014 study from Pennsylvania State University, uncovering further evidence that pesticides impair pollinator immune system function, found that bees with a diet of natural, high quality pollen exhibit greater resistance to pesticides’ damaging effects than bees on an artificial diet.

“Given consistent effects of sunflower in reducing pathogens, planting sunflower in agroecosystems and native habitat,” says Adler, “may provide a simple solution to reduce disease and improve the health of economically and ecologically important pollinators.”

Protecting pollinators is vital to American agriculture. Such widespread use of systemic pesticides and the resulting decline of pollinators threatens the stability of the global economy and food supply, along with ecosystems and human health. Before winter sets in, begin to manage landscapes with pollinators in mind. Prepare a space in your yard where you can plant organic sunflower seeds or plant starts, not poisoned with neonicotinoids or other pesticides.  Sunflowers are not a cure to all bee diseases. Nevertheless, apathy; an unwillingness to act when necessity dictates action, can be a toxin as potent as any pesticide. See www.BEEProtective.org to find out how you, as part of a grassroots coalition, can get your community, schools, and local government to take action to protect pollinators.

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

Source: EurekaAlert, Scientific Reports

(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2018) Bottlenose dolphins found along Florida’s west coast contain detectable levels of phthalates, chemicals used in plastics, cosmetics and as inert ingredients in pesticide products, research published in the journal GeoHealth last month indicates. The study, published by scientists from the College of Charleston, South Carolina, is the first to find detectable levels of these toxic industrial byproducts in dolphins. Given the transient nature of urinary detection, the findings indicate that dolphins and other marine mammals are at increased risk of health effects related to phthalate exposure.

Scientists sampled a total of 17 dolphins found in Sarasota Bay, FL over the course of two years. Of the 17, phthalates were detected in 12 individuals, or 71% of dolphins. The type of phthalates discovered was indicative of the source of the contaminant. With researchers detecting mono‐(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP) and monoethyl phthalate (MEP) most frequently. While MEHP is associated with plastic pollution, MEP is a breakdown product of diethyl phthalate (DEP), a compound that has been used in pesticide products as an inert ingredient.

“These chemicals can enter marine waters from urban runoff and agriculture or industrial emissions, but we also know that there is a lot of plastic pollution in the environment,” said Leslie Hart, PhD, lead author of the study to NOLA.com.

The detection results point to the need for increased concern considering the recent impacts on the dolphin population in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill killed between 30 and 70% of dolphins in the area, indicating it would take between 30 to 50 years for the population to recover. And as a result of the significant red tide events in Florida this summer, nearly 50 dolphins in southwest Florida died.

Studies of phthalate exposure in humans links the chemicals to endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, and liver and kidney toxicity. A study published in 2016 attributes phthalate exposure to 145,000 cases of endometriosis each year in the European Union, costing up to $1.4 million annually. A 2015 study also linked phthalate exposure to early menopause in U.S. women. While certain phthalates were removed from uses as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations in 2016, there is no telling whether the inerts tested remain in agricultural chemicals used in the region. A similar biomonitoring study conducted in 2016 found the former undisclosed inert ingredients known as perfluroalkyl phosphinic acids (PFPIAs) in fish birds as well as dolphins tested in the exact same location.

Dr. Hart wrote in the study, “Although the sample sample size was small, this study provides some evidence that urinary levels of (phthalates) are relatively high in Sarasota Bay bottlenose dolphins based on comparisons to human urine … warranting more detailed study of exposure routes in the coastal marine environment.”

The researchers told NOLA.com that dolphins act as “great sentinels” for detecting broader issues with ocean habitats. “Any animals in the near-shore environment with similar prey are probably being exposed as well,” said Dr. Hart.

Ultimately, it is up to humans to reduce and eliminate the introduction of novel toxicants into marine waters. In addition to reducing plastic pollution, phthalates should be eliminated from pesticide formulations. Better yet are strategies, such as a shift to organic farming, which would eliminate the need for toxic pesticide use in the first place.

“We’ve introduced these chemicals – they are not natural toxins – and we have the ability to reverse it, to clean this up,” said Dr. Hart.

See past coverage for additional information inert ingredients in pesticide formulations. And visit Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife program page to learn more about the threats pesticides pose to ecosystems and what can be done to help.

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

Source: NOLA.com, GeoHealth

(Beyond Pesticides, October 23, 2018)  The Chief Minister of the Sikkim state in northeast India, Pawan Chamling, addressed a news conference in the Italian Parliament on October 15 to issue a call for a complete, global transition to organic agriculture by 2050. Citing the increasing dangers of climate disruption and its impacts, Mr. Chamling said that such conversion to pesticide- and petrochemical-free practices would reduce carbon emissions by 50%. The call for banning pesticides in communities and countries nationwide is gaining increasing traction, as the shift to organic land management is increasing exponentially. The town of Mals, Italy (93 square miles in area, encompassing ten villages and hamlets, as well as farmland, home to 5,092 people) passed a ban on a ballot initiative with 75% in favor and 69% of the electorate voting. In 2013, the country of Bhutan adopted completely organic practices  throughout its nation. Although not affecting agricultural pesticide use, towns across the U.S. are adopting measures that stop pesticide use community-wide. Ordinances in the cities of Ogunquit, South Portland, and Portland, Maine and the City of Takoma Park, Maryland are examples of city-wide pesticide bans. A petition in Switzerland calls for the banning of pesticides country-wide.

States in northeast India — including Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, HImachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura — had already, over the past few decades, used far lower quantities of pesticides than have other areas of the country. Khorlo Bhutia, principal director and secretary of Sikkim’s Horticulture and Cash Crops Development Department, has said that Sikkim was already “close to being organic by default.” In 2004, Mizoram was the first Indian state to legislate a conversion of its agriculture to 100% organic (though that legislation lacks any deadlines for achievement of the goal), and Kerala and several others are now on the path to fully organic production. A number of other states — Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Gujarat — all have some sort of organic farming law or policy on their books. Their pursuit of organic agriculture will no doubt benefit from Sikkim’s experiences.

Sikkim, the least populous and smallest of the Indian states, whose terrain is quite mountainous, began its own transition to organic in 2003, and achieved it statewide in 2015 — despite the inevitable opposition from the chemical industry and other political parties. From 2003, the state started reducing subsidies of chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers by 10% annually. It then banned them completely in 2014, making their sale or use subject to imprisonment or fines.

The transition in Sikkim has not been without its challenges, including too little access to organic compost for farmers, some farmers’ claims of insufficient information and tools with which to deal with pest infestations, some reports of lowered productivity, and poor marketing of the “Sikkim Organic” label (and so, unrealized premiums for agricultural products). The bulk of Sikkim’s organic food was not, as of April 2017, marketed and sold as organic produce. “Since there is no regulation on food that comes from outside the state, organic food grown in Sikkim competes with the cheaper conventional food that comes from West Bengal. Therefore, farmers in Sikkim suffer a major disadvantage,” said GV Ramanjaneyulu, executive director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Secunderabad, Telangana, who works with 2,000+ farmers in Sikkim. State government acknowledges that successful marketing has lagged, citing lack of funds.

The state government has reported that the productivity of every crop, but for one native orange, has either remained stable or improved slightly from 2010/2011 to 2015/2016. MK Pradhan, another director of the Sikkim Organic Mission, the nodal agency established in 2010 to shepherd Sikkim’s transition, noted that, “Initially, there was apprehension among farmers and, in some villages, they refused to take up organic farming. But with continuous training and education, there was a shift in their mindset.”

Despite those challenges, Sikkim is taking a bit of a victory lap to encourage others to step up to make the transition to organic. Among Minister Chamling’s comments during the press conference was this: “Based on my long experience and association with the organic initiative, I can tell you in all good faith and confidence that a 100 per cent organic world is possible. If we could do it in Sikkim, there is no reason why policymakers, farmers and community leaders cannot do the same elsewhere in the world.” He added, “‘Sikkim is the most peaceful state in India. . . . It is the best in many ways’”; Minister Chamling went on to note the state’s gender equality, and the absence of extreme poverty and religious and caste tensions. Vandana Shiva, renowned environmental and agricultural activist, underscored the correlation, saying that “organic zones” are “zones of democracy,” and “Sikkim shows the world it is possible to be 100 per cent free of the chemicals that destroy and [to] defeat the forces that promote them.”

By contrast, here in the U.S., organic agriculture has seen significant growth and consumer interest during the past couple of decades, especially; it is now a $53 billion sector. Yet progress on a full transition to organic agriculture has been erratic. The development of organic standards for agriculture were required by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990; the National Organic Program and National Organic Standards Board (which advises the Secretary of Agriculture on organic food matters) were created a decade later. Organic agriculture has been proven to be beneficial for both producers and consumers, and its advantages are legion, providing significant health and environmental advantages, as compared with conventional industrial agriculture. (Read more on the case for organic agriculture here and here.)

Nevertheless, the forces arrayed to oppose such a transition are formidable; they include the chemical, petroleum, and conventional agriculture industries, trade associations, and some farmer membership organizations. All presumably fear lowered profits, if not outright obsolescence.

Existing standards and protections for the organic sector must also be protected. There are, for example, efforts by federal agencies in the Trump administration, and members of Congress, to gnaw away at the National Organic Standards, which protect the integrity of organic production and certification. The current Farm Bill (S. 3042) is a case in point: as proposed, it seeks to change a sunsetting provision on synthetic chemicals permitted in organic production so that such chemicals would remain on the official list of those allowed, rather than fall off the list absent an expected, every-five-years review process for such chemicals.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for a transition of our agricultural economy to organic, and, like Minister Chamling, renews the urgency of the need for this transition in the face of advancing climate disruption. It writes frequently about assaults on organic, and about the importance of protecting and advocating for its integrity, often through resisting harmful changes that may arise in the development of each Farm Bill. Its webpage on this fall’s National Organic Standards Board meeting provides an overview of the issues at stake and ways to become active on them. See the Keep Organic Strong webpage to learn more about organic and how to support and advocate for it.

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

Source: https://www.devdiscourse.com/Article/science-environment/218898-sikkim-cm-urges-world-to-adopt-farming-without-chemical-fertilisers-and-pesticides

(Beyond Pesticides, October 22, 2018) The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is accepting comments on its proposal to classify chlorpyrifos as a toxic air pollutant. The classification would require DPR to develop control measures that adequately protect public health. What happens in California affects all of us because products of California agriculture are available all over the country –and the world. In addition, policies set by the state of California are often examples for other states and the federal government.

Tell California Department of Pesticide Regulation to ban chlorpyrifos.

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) states:

Under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (AB 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and its implementing regulations (Title 3, California Code of Regulations, Section 6864), one of the criteria for identifying a pesticide as a TAC is if its concentration in the air exceeds one-tenth of the level that has been determined to be adequately protective of human health. The draft TAC document shows that bystanders can be exposed to modeled air concentrations of chlorpyrifos that exceed one-tenth the protective level, and thus meet the criteria for TAC identification. OEHHA’s findings below serve to reinforce this overall conclusion, and further support the identification of chlorpyrifos as a TAC.

In addition to modeled results, OEHHA found that those exposed to chlorpyrifos during 2004-2014 most often reported systemic symptoms including (including headache, nausea and dizziness), eye irritation, and respiratory complaints (breathing difficulties, cough, and throat irritation). Almost 90% of those reporting such symptoms were bystanders.

OEHHA points out that many studies link exposure to chlorpyrifos to developmental neurotoxicity at very low rates of exposure, and this has been confirmed by the state’s Proposition 65 Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. In addition, children may be bystanders exposed to chlorpyrifos who may suffer greater respiratory effects because of their developing lungs.

The details of the assessment support OEHHA’s conclusion that chlorpyrifos is a toxic air contaminant requiring control measures that adequately protect human health. Given the range of toxic impacts at low levels of exposure, DPR must cancel the registration of chlorpyrifos.

Tell California Department of Pesticide Regulation to ban chlorpyrifos.

 Letter to DPR:

The review by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) demonstrates that chlorpyrifos is a toxic air contaminant requiring the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to develop control measures that adequately protect public health.

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) states:

Under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (AB 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and its implementing regulations (Title 3, California Code of Regulations, Section 6864), one of the criteria for identifying a pesticide as a TAC is if its concentration in the air exceeds one-tenth of the level that has been determined to be adequately protective of human health. The draft TAC document shows that bystanders can be exposed to modeled air concentrations of chlorpyrifos that exceed one-tenth the protective level, and thus meet the criteria for TAC identification. OEHHA’s findings below serve to reinforce this overall conclusion, and further support the identification of chlorpyrifos as a TAC.

In addition to modeled results, OEHHA found that those exposed to chlorpyrifos during 2004-2014 most often reported systemic symptoms including (including headache, nausea and dizziness), eye irritation, and respiratory complaints (breathing difficulties, cough, and throat irritation). Almost 90% of those reporting such symptoms were bystanders.

OEHHA points out that many studies link exposure to chlorpyrifos to developmental neurotoxicity at very low rates of exposure, and this has been confirmed by the state’s Proposition 65 Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. In addition, children may be bystanders exposed to chlorpyrifos who may suffer greater respiratory effects because of their developing lungs.

The details of the assessment support OEHHA’s conclusion that chlorpyrifos is a toxic air contaminant requiring control measures that adequately protect human health. Given the range of toxic impacts at low levels of exposure, DPR must cancel the registration of chlorpyrifos.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, October 19, 2018) Pollinator advocates and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are imploring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to deny Bayer CropScience’s application for use of “Sivanto,”a pesticide product with the active ingredient flupyradifurone, a chemical the company claims is safer for bees, but poses the same risks at the notorious bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides. If approved, Sivanto would be sprayed in tobacco-growing states along 300,000 acres in the southeast U.S., areas home to more than three dozen species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Bayer’s proposal for expanded uses comes after EPA’s own assessment indicated risks to endangered species, and despite the fact that the agency has not undergone an ESA mandated consultation with federal wildlife agencies.

For the countless flying insects, birds, and bats already under significant threat from neonicotinoids, adding another systemic insecticide to the mix will only make the situation worse. Bayer AG is characterizing flupyradifurone as being harmless to honeybees. However, flupyradifurone, being a systemic pesticide, can negatively impact many non-target species.  In fact, flupyradifurone impacts honey bee brains in a similar way to neonicotinoids, as it impairs learning, memory and the honey bees’ affinity for nectar rewards. Advocates worry that growing use of flupyradifurone would tragically add to the existing negative effects still being caused by widespread use of other neonicotinoids on corn and soy in states where tobacco is also grown. Therefore, CBD has insisted that the EPA also seek consultation on any synergistic and cumulative effects of flupyradifurone with other pesticides in use nearby. CBD is currently suing over EPA’s failure to engage in ESA consultation before it first registered this controversial pesticide.

Flupyradifurone, being highly water soluble, is not just harmful to honey bees, but also poses significant threat to aquatic ecosystems sheltering invertebrates such as aquatic mayfly larvae and rare freshwater mussels. In fact, among the 38 threatened and endangered species inhabiting areas where tobacco is grown, 17 are species of freshwater mussels that play essential water-purifying roles in aquatic ecosystems.

“Approval of this harmful neurotoxin would create a dangerous double-whammy for bees and freshwater mussels already suffering from exposure to neonics,” said CBD senior scientist, Tara Cornelisse, Ph.D. “Expanded use of this harmful pesticide is a risk we can’t afford to take.”

The Center and allies sued the EPA over its initial approval of flupyradifurone, challenging the agency’s refusal to take common sense measures to protect endangered species from this new and controversial pesticide. This litigation is in its initial stages at the Washington, D.C. Court of Appeals.

Take Action! Protect Pollinators and fragile aquatic ecosystems!  Least-toxic products exist. Learn how to aerate, feed soil organisms, and watch the desired plants’ health improve. Instead of enabling the chemical industry’s whack-a-mole, or a mere product-for-product swap, read Eating with a Conscience to learn how buying local, organic, regenerativally-grown food is the better choice for your family and the planet as a whole. Organize a local coalition and collaborate with others to keep pressure on grocery store owners, nurseries, hardware stores, and elected city officials to eliminate neonicotinoids and related compounds, while offering certified organic and organic compatible products in their supply chain.

Eliminating the sale of neonicotinoids, related compounds, and other harmful pesticides does not mean that retailers will have nothing left to sell their customers. Beyond Pesticides released The Well-Stocked Hardware Store, an online toolkit that identifies organic compatible products for hardware stores seeking to find replacement products that can be used with an organic system approach to land management. See Beyond Pesticides database of Products Compatible with Organic Land Management. Beyond Pesticides highlights the actions of Eldredge Lumber, a hardware store in Maine, through the video Making the Switch. “You’re protecting the environment, your family, your children and grandchildren, and your neighbors. Nobody wants to have pesticides drifting into their front or rear yard, and people are just loving it, they’re feeding into it. I couldn’t be happier,” says owner Scott Eldredge in the video. Buy certified organic food, which, by law cannot be grown with neonicotinoids or related compounds like flupyradifurone.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity press release

(Beyond Pesticides, October 18, 2018) Pesticide residue doesn’t announce itself –it isn’t colored, it doesn’t glow or reflect light, and after an initial application doesn’t put out a discernible odor – but it is likely ubiquitous in rural U.S. homes, according to a study published by Cornell University researchers late last month. The study is a warning specifically to households with young children, who are at increased risk of health effects from even minute levels of pesticide exposure. “Numerous health problems occur from exposure to pesticides, such as cancer, birth defects, leukemia and ocular [vision-related] toxicity, among a number of other health issues,” said Joseph Laquatra, PhD, coauthor of the research. “Households with crawling toddlers should be concerned, as toddlers will accumulate pesticide residues on their hands and then ingest them due to hand-to-mouth behaviors.”

Researchers focused in on 132 households in rural counties of New York State that agreed to test for pesticide residue inside their home. Wipe samples were collected from both carpeted and non-carpeted areas, and tested for pesticides used commonly as part of agricultural production in the region. The pesticides analyzed included 15 compounds ranging from organophosphates like chlorpyrifos and malathion, to synthetic pyrethroids like resmethrin, the triazine herbicide atrazine, and the widely used herbicide 2,4-D.

Every single compound tested for was discovered in every home examined. This discovery has important implications for rural residents. Pesticides can make their way into homes through a variety of ways. The obvious route is a home application, but many of the pesticides tested were restricted use, allowed only to be used outside or in agriculture by certified pesticide applicators. Previous studies have shown that herbicides like 2,4-D can be tracked into the home on shoes or by pets, but pesticides can also enter houses through airborne entry or off-gassing from soil.

Once making it into a home, pesticides will take much longer to degrade than in the outdoor environment in water or soil. A study published last year found that synthetic pyrethroids, the active ingredient in most bug sprays like RAID, leave significant residues that can persist in homes for over a year.  And studies have found that the presence of a pesticide in one’s home correlates with the concentration of a pesticide subsequently found in an individual’s urine. And children, being more prone to crawling on the floor and hand and mouth activities, are at greater risk of pesticide-induced diseases than adults.

While pesticide residue may invisible to the naked eye, there are sources of exposure that households can address in attempts to reduce residue inside the home: dirt and dust. In their research, the Cornell team referenced a 2006 study which found that cleaning practices could significantly reduce pesticide residues.

“When building new homes or remodeling existing homes, install hard surface, easy-to-clean floors, such as hardwood, tile or resilient flooring. Keep floors clean,” he said. “Have a home entry system that captures soil and pollutants at the door. This entry system should consist of a hard-surfaced walkway, such as a paved sidewalk, a grate-like scraper mat outside the entry door, and a highly absorbent doormat that will trap pollutants.”

With pesticides found in our air, water, and soil, it is no wonder that these chemicals are also making their way into our homes. While household protective measures focused on removing dirt and dust that pesticides have clung to can make an impact today, only sustained efforts towards a pesticide-free society will end the risks pesticides pose to our health.

Help support this movement by purchasing organic whenever possible, switching to pesticide-free management of home lawns, forgoing the use of pesticides inside the home, and encouraging your community to follow suit by implementing pesticide reform policies. Tell us you’re ready to fight for a pesticide-free community by signing the petition today, and receive a packet of information you can use to advocate in your community.

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

Source: Cornell University PR

(Beyond Pesticides, October 17, 2018) The unsustainable life cycle management of pesticides during the past seven decades has created huge stockpiles of these (and other toxic) chemicals across much of the globe, including Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. The journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research has published a special series of articles and reports from the International HCH & Pesticides Association (IHPA), titled “The legacy of pesticides and POPs stockpiles — a threat to health and the environment.” Stockpiles have accumulated because some products have been banned for health or environmental reasons, leaving stocks (aka waste) that are often stored inadequately, and which deteriorate and migrate to contaminate the environment and put people at risk. Those affected are very often in poor, rural communities that may be unaware of the threat in their midst. Beyond Pesticides covered this “chemical time bomb” problem in 2004 and again nearly a decade ago.

The special issue of Environmental Science and Pollution Research responds to multiple fronts on this problem of accumulation and storage of toxic compounds, identifying the two largest issues as: (1) the stockpile of some 4–7 million tons of hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) waste from lindane production; and the 240,000 tons of pesticides, no longer used, that are accumulating in the EECCA countries (in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus region) — without safety regulations to control their storage and release into the environment. [Note: a tonne is 1,000 kg; a North American ton is 907.1847 kg.] These “legacy” stockpiles of toxic chemicals represent enormous risks to human and environmental health and safety.

POPs — persistent organic pollutants — were the subject of a 2001 international treaty, The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The treaty was the culmination of negotiations conducted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which launched the treaty process in 1998. It aimed to eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs, chemical substances that persist in the environment, bio-accumulate through the food web and particularly in fatty tissues, and pose risks to human health and the environment. Pesticides represent a significant portion of compounds designated as POPs.

The treaty identified and banned 12 especially noxious POPs: aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), mirex, toxaphene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. In the years since 2001, others have been added to the list, including several pesticides: lindane, endosulfans, α-hexachlorocyclohexane and β-hexachlorocyclohexane (β-HCH), and pentachlorobenzene (PeCB). The Stockholm treaty requires that developed countries fund measures to eliminate the production and use of intentionally produced POPs, eliminate unintentionally produced POPs when possible, and manage and dispose of POPs wastes in an environmentally sound manner. POPs produced unintentionally are generally byproducts of combustion or industrial processes; incineration is a very common source, and dioxins are a common, “unintentional” POP byproduct.

The IHPA organizes its biannual International HCH and Pesticides Forum, which convenes policy makers, researchers, government entities, project donors, and representatives from civil society and industry for discussion on issues related to POP pollution and potential solutions to the variety of problems they present. Its Zaragoza Declaration, eponymously named for the site of its most-recent convention in 2015, called on all national governments “to take leadership in the elimination of POP pesticides, POPs and associated waste; understand and discuss the increasing negative socioeconomic, environment and human health impacts of non-action and the associated damages and losses slowing down economic development; strengthen environmental institutions on all levels, build capacity through training programs and ensure that existing capacities are maintained; strengthen the custom regulations and monitoring in order to avoid substandard and counterfeit products entering the countries; and allocate funding for awareness raising through media and education as well as to advance sustainable technologies for elimination of obsolete pesticides and associated wastes, contaminated soils and water in an environmentally sound manner.” The gathering also generated “to do” lists for individual governments, the European Parliament and European Commission, international organizations and financial institutions, and other potential partners in such efforts.

In addition, the declaration identified three areas for further understanding and development: identifying and implementing an established framework for sound management of hazardous waste in the EECCA countries, and for building leadership and capacity for the task; the need for multinational funding of remediation problems at identified mega-sites, such as that in the Aragon region of Spain; and recognition that the total clean-up costs for the known legacy sites is less than 0.1% of the 2014 GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the EECCA countries. Hence, elimination of the legacy of POP pesticides, POPs, and associated waste should be affordable, the IHPA concludes. One of the IHPA papers, tellingly, indicates the ultimate folly of loosing these compounds into the environment: “The cases of the POPs pesticide dumpsites in Kyrgyzstan demonstrate the current challenges to manage such sites in developing countries and that often only small budgets and minimum mitigation measures are available to address the largest exposure risks.”

POPs are associated with a variety of health problems, including early menopause, and Type 2 and gestational diabetes. Also underscored in various of the IHPA papers and reports are: links between exposure to POPs and risks of obesity and metabolic syndrome, and the particular sensitivity of the developing fetus, especially the brain and immune system, to environmental chemical insults. The IHPA helps identify the enormity of the persistent organic pollutant (POP) problem globally, and in the Kyrgyz Republic, in particular, where levels of these chemicals in blood, breastmilk, and human placentas are very high. Increasing levels of organochlorine pesticides found in placental tissue were correlated with increased health risks of low birth weights, pre-eclampsia, infection, and congenital anomalies in newborns, among other impacts.

Dealing effectively with this poorly controlled aggregation of pollution, its relevance to human exposure risk, and possible improvements in management and/or destruction of the stockpiles is a big challenge for developing and transitioning economies, says the IHPA. Funds with which to change or institute more-protective approaches are insufficient, and appropriate technology is often unavailable. One region in northeast Spain, for example, attempted to relocate an HCH landfill because of extreme risk to two nearby rivers. Because of lack of funding to dismantle and relocate the waste and the many tons of contaminated soil to an “appropriate” site, it was simply moved to another landfill farther from the rivers.

China has managed to destroy more than 10,000 tons of POP pesticide stockpiles, and 400,000 tons of pesticide-contaminated soils, although it did so via incineration in cement kilns — which comes with its own pollution issues. Researchers are exploring alternative and less dangerous methods, for example: the utility of certain bacteria for degrading aldrin; the role that a bacterium, combined with ryegrass, might play in the remediation of soils contaminated with DDT and DDE; and the potential of a selective catalytic oxidative system, using a self-developed honeycomb catalyst in a municipal waste incinerator, to destroy some POPs.

Endemic to storage of toxic pesticide waste is the issue of these compounds migrating out of storage and into the environment. Some have likened the storage issue to that of nuclear waste storage: there simply is no great solution. Approaches to the storage of such toxic waste — often landfilling — are fraught with significant risk of the waste compounds leaking into proximate soils, water bodies, and/or groundwater, or in the worst circumstances, being volatilized into the air. Beyond storage, there is the problem of actually destroying the wastes. Incineration, whether via cement kiln co-incineration, hazardous waste incineration, or so-called advanced solid waste incineration (ASWI), are primary methods and come with their own baggage. There is no “pollution free” way to burn anything, including toxic waste. Chief among the products of the incineration of POPs and other wastes are highly toxic dioxins — compounds that can cause serious health impacts on reproduction, development, and endocrine and immune function, as well as cause cancers. As the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives stated in its report, Incinerators Trash Human Health, “All incinerators contaminate people and the environment with toxic and cancer-causing emissions.”

Once humans created pesticides, they automatically created storage and life cycle problems, as is common in the materials stream. Those developing materials, whether chemicals, or industrial or consumer products, too infrequently attend to the issue of “what happens at the other end of the life cycle?” Nor do they, for a variety of reasons that include inadequate governmental regulation, tend to consider the environmental and health issues to which the presence of such items may contribute or even cause.

Yet here we all are, with huge amounts of these compounds in our environment because human societies have not yet adopted principles of precaution in materials development. This toxic waste from pesticides that may have been manufactured and distributed into the environment for decades, and are then, at some point, deemed too dangerous for use, is but one of the challenges we face. Beyond Pesticides monitors this and all issues related to the development, use, and regulation of pesticides.

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

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-018-3188-3

(Beyond Pesticides, October 16, 2018) Bacteria exposed to widely used herbicides like Roundup develop antibiotic resistance 100,000 times faster than average, according to new research published by New Zealand scientists in PeerJ. The results have ominous implications for the modern world’s ability to avert a post-antibiotic era. Even if new antibiotics are discovered, or existing compounds used more judiciously, scientists say that will not be enough to prevent the ongoing crisis – the world is also confronting bacterial exposure to herbicides and other non-antibiotic agents that have the ability to rapidly induce resistance.

“Herbicides are among the most widely used and dispersed manufactured products on Earth. Some form of exposure for people, pets and livestock can be routinely expected,” study author Jack Heinemann, PhD, told Newsweek. “Meanwhile, antibiotics are used at high rates particularly on people, pets and livestock. Therefore, the combination of exposures for bacteria that live on us is all but guaranteed.”

This current round of research by Dr. Heinemann and his team is the outgrowth of previous studies (1, 2) that established the ability of common herbicides to induce antibiotic resistance in strains of pathogenic bacteria Salmonella eterica and Escherichia coli. Now, the scientists are drilling into the real-world implications of these phenomena, investigating whether realistic levels of exposure to Roundup (glyphosate) and Kamba (dicamba) herbicides can precipitate the evolution of resistant populations.

Scientists conducted a number of tests, which fell into two broad categories. Where herbicides were shown to increase the minimum amount of an antibiotic required to control bacterial growth, scientists investigated whether the bacteria that survived would pass those traits on. Where herbicides were found to lower the minimum amount an antibiotic required to control bacterial growth, scientists investigated whether the herbicide changed the sub-lethal amount known to induce resistance in subsequent microbial populations.

Results showed that bacteria continually exposed to herbicides and the antibiotic ciprofloxacin (cipro) rapidly developed offspring that required higher amounts of antibiotics to control. Researchers calculated that the combination of Kamba with cipro and S. typhimurium resulted in resistance developing at rates 100 times faster than usual, while a Roundup, cipro, and E. coli combination led to rates 100,000 faster than average.

When herbicides had the effect of lowering the minimum amount required to control bacteria, scientists found that a combination of herbicide and antibiotic exposure resulted in the development of offspring that required higher amounts of antibiotics to control. E. coli exposed to Roundup and Kamba, in combination with either tetracycline or streptomycin, ultimately led to microbial populations that required higher amounts of antibiotics to control. “We are inclined to think that when a drug or other chemical makes antibiotics more potent, that should be a good thing,” says Dr. Heinemann. “But it also makes the antibiotic more effective at promoting resistance when the antibiotic is at lower concentrations, as we more often find in the environment. Such combinations can be like trying to put out the raging fire of antibiotic resistance with gasoline.”

Bacteria exposed to herbicides alone did not create antibiotic resistance. However, scientists also found that bacteria exposed to both herbicides and antibiotics with mutagenic properties could develop resistance as a result of higher rates of random mutations.

Antibiotic resistance represents and existential threat to modern civilization. As the study authors’ note, “antibiotic resistance in our pathogens is medicine’s climate change: caused by human activity, and resulting in more extreme outcomes.” Like climate change, we successfully address growing antibiotic resistance, but there must be the cultural and political will to make the shift. Advocates already working towards pesticide reform can add another reason for policymakers to shift away from toxic herbicides and other pesticides: stopping antibiotic resistance.

For more information on the connection between the herbicide Roundup and bacteria in our environment, see the article Monsanto’s Roundup (Glyphosate) Exposed. Help support organic agriculture, which eliminated the allowed use of antibiotics for fruit production due to concerns over resistance.

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

Source: University of Canterbury,PeerJ, Newsweek

(Beyond Pesticides, October 15, 2018) As a leader in organic sales, it is critical that Kroger take additional expedited steps to increase the market share of organic food and eliminate the use of toxic pesticides harmful to public health and the environment. Kroger is among the major food retailers that sells food that has been grown with toxic pesticides, such as the extremely hazardous insecticide chlorpyrifos which causes neurological and brain damage in children. Kroger should immediately end its misleading and fraudulent advertising and labeling of food products as “natural” and replace these with certified organic products. In fact, by misleading consumers with “natural” labeling and advertising of food, Kroger supports chemical-intensive agriculture that poisons children, causes cancer, and threatens biodiversity through the use of toxic chemicals like chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, and neonicotinoids. This is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Tell Kroger to stop selling food grown with toxic pesticides.

Chlorpyrifos  is a highly neurotoxic organophosphate pesticide that is linked to neurologic developmental disorders in children. Exposure to even low levels of organophosphates like chlorpyrifos during pregnancy impairs learning, changes brain function, and alters thyroid levels of offspring into adulthood. EPA’s own assessment finds that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos have developmental delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders, and concluded that there is “sufficient evidence” that there are neurodevelopmental effects at low levels, and that current approaches for evaluating chlorpyrifos’ neurological impact are “not sufficiently health protective.” Yet, EPA reversed the ban based on the judgment of its own scientists and when ordered by the courts to reinstate the ban, appealed.

As documented by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, glyphosate causes cancer. IARC classifies glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen, which means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It has been specifically linked to non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma. Glyphosate disrupts a crucial pathway for manufacturing aromatic amino acids in plants and bacteria, and has been patented as an antibiotic. The destruction of bacteria in the human gut is a major contributor to disease, and the destruction of soil microbiota leads to unhealthy agricultural systems with an increasing dependence on agricultural chemicals.

Kroger has already announced that it will phase out the sale of live garden plants grown with neonicotinoid insecticides. In a press release in June 2018, Kroger said, “Kroger also offers one of the largest organic produce departments in America, which is desirable for customers seeking to minimize potential exposure to synthetic pesticides. Representing nearly 20 percent of America’s annual organic produce business, Kroger sales in this sector reached $1 billion in 2017.”

Given Kroger’s existing commitment to offering organic food, it is reasonable to ask the company to commit to substituting organic products for those that deceptively portrayed as “natural” and “free from 101+ artificial ingredients and preservatives,” but are grown with and have residues of hazardous pesticides.

Tell Kroger to stop selling food grown with toxic pesticides.

Letter to Kroger:

Thank you for your leadership in the sales of organic produce. I appreciate stores that stock organic food, which is healthier for me, the farmers who grow it, and the environment. It is important that stores where I shop not only offer organic food, but clearly distinguish it from food produced by chemical-intensive agriculture

Although Kroger’s stores offer many organic products, they also sell many products –especially those with the “Simple Truth” label—that mislead the consumer through their representation as “natural” and “free from 101+ artificial ingredients and preservatives.” Unfortunately, those “natural” and “free from” products are produced by a chemical-intensive agriculture that uses toxic pesticides and fertilizers. The chemical used on such nonorganic farms poison children, cause cancer, and threaten biodiversity. Chemical-intensive agriculture uses toxic chemicals like chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, and neonicotinoids.

Chlorpyrifos  is a highly neurotoxic organophosphate pesticide that is linked to neurologic developmental disorders in children. Exposure to even low levels of organophosphates like chlorpyrifos during pregnancy impairs learning, changes brain function, and alters thyroid levels of offspring into adulthood. EPA’s own assessment finds that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos have developmental delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders, and concluded that there is “sufficient evidence” that there are neurodevelopmental effects at low levels, and that current approaches for evaluating chlorpyrifos’ neurological impact are “not sufficiently health protective.” Yet, EPA reversed the ban based on the judgment of its own scientists and when ordered by the courts to reinstate the ban, appealed.

As documented by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, glyphosate causes cancer. IARC classifies glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen, which means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.  It has been specifically linked to non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma. Glyphosate disrupts a crucial pathway for manufacturing aromatic amino acids in plants and bacteria, and glyphosate has been patented as an antibiotic. The destruction of bacteria in the human gut is a major contributor to disease, and the destruction of soil microbiota leads to unhealthy agricultural systems with an increasing dependence on agricultural chemicals.

Kroger has already announced that it will phase out the sale of live garden plants grown with neonicotinoid insecticides. In a press release in June 2018, Kroger said, “Kroger also offers one of the largest organic produce departments in America, which is desirable for customers seeking to minimize potential exposure to synthetic pesticides. Representing nearly 20 percent of America’s annual organic produce business, Kroger sales in this sector reached $1 billion in 2017.”

Given Kroger’s existing commitment to offering organic food, I ask you to commit to substituting organic products for those with the misleading portrayal as “natural” and “free from 101+ artificial ingredients and preservatives,” but are grown with and have residues of hazardous pesticides.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 12, 2018) For the first time in its history, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) denied a permit to apply toxic pesticides to a local waterbody, according to reports from the regional nonprofit organization Toxics Action Center. The DEC decision responded to an application from the Town of Williston, VT to use the herbicide SePRO Sonar AS® on Lake Iroquois, a 237 acre spring-fed body of water used for public recreation, in order to control Eurasian watermilfoil. DEC ruled that use of the herbicide posed risks to the holistic integrity of the lake waters, the Champlain watershed, and surrounding ecology.

Sonar contains the active ingredient fluridone, which studies have linked to endocrine disruption, kidney/liver damage and toxicity to fish/aquatic organisms. It has also been identified as a potent groundwater contaminant. With this background, fluridone use has been the subject of public opposition.

The permit application submitted by Williston city officials identified $350,000 in costs to apply the pesticide over the next five years, with 3-4 applications scheduled each summer. Milfoil typically takes over shallow coastal waters, out competes native aquatic plants for space and sunlight, reduces oxygen levels and harms fish habitat. Milfoil, like other invasive plants, proliferates so quickly due to a lack of natural competition or a balanced ecosystem.

However, review of the application by advocates uncovered that research into non-toxic methods had received relatively little funding.  Though many safety retirements had not been adequately addressed, in order for the spray permit to pass, DEC required the City of Williston to determine the following:

1. there is no reasonable nonchemical alternative available;
2. there is acceptable risk to the nontarget environment;
3. there is negligible risk to public health;
4. a long‐range management plan has been developed which incorporates a schedule of pesticide minimization; and
5. there is a public benefit to be achieved from the application of a pesticide or, in the case of a pond located entirely on a landowner’s property, no undue adverse effect upon the public good.

Residents expressed concern that fluridone would pose hazards to water, used for drinking, cooking, cleaning, and irrigation, and an integral part of many popular recreational areas as well.  In addition, as a result of poor enforcement, the effects of Sonar would have been severe. For at least 24 hours after using the pesticide, the minimum safety precautions require that residents avoid drinking water from the wells near the lake, which could contain unsafe levels of the toxic chemical. Residents would not be able to water their gardens with water that draws from the lake for 30 days after the pesticide application—and with 3-4 treatments each summer, lawns and gardens could not be safely watered for the entire season.

“We can solve the invasive species problem without introducing a chemical problem,” said Meg Handler of Concerned Citizens of Lake Iroquois. “We need to make choices that are healthy for the whole lake and the whole community. A chemical like Sonar is not a safe choice.”

While the invasive species problem may not be fully defined or understood, the short-term pesticide solution too often creates greater ecological imbalances. More often than not, invasive species, after introduction to a land region, become a larger issue where ecosystems are already compromised and lacking biodiversity’s checks and balances. Consequently, an “eradication of the invasive” mindset can lead to increased and unregulated pesticide use.

In reality, defining and managing invasives in an ecological context ensures better protection for human health and the environment.

Before the DEC’s decision, members of Concerned Citizens of Lake Iroquois, recognizing that protection from pesticides would take collaboration from the citizens of the four neighboring towns around the lake, argued that towns must take every opportunity to discuss and research alternatives before beginning any herbicide application. They contacted their elected officials with concern that safety precautions would lack enforcement, fearing 1) that sprayed pesticides would linger, 2) that drinking water would be tainted, 3) that wells near the lake could contain unsafe levels of chemical toxins, and 4) that swimming and fishing would be prohibited.

In addition to determining that the pesticide application represented an “unacceptable risk,” DEC found that “non-chemical alternatives” had not been effectively tested.

The concern about harm extended beyond human health to the range of species that call Lake Iroquois home, including the fish species Bullhead, Bass, and Perch, five species of frogs and other amphibians, as well as larger animals inhabiting neighboring grasslands, such as Beavers, river Otters, Deer, Coyote, and Fox.

“This decision is a groundbreaking, long-term victory for the lake, surrounding towns and a toxic-free future in Vermont,” said Shaina Kasper of Toxics Action Center, a public health and environmental nonprofit. “Across Vermont, residents are standing up for safe, pesticide-free ways to take care of our environment. This decision is the first of its kind, but it won’t be the last.”

In 2012, after discovering pigweed resistance to Roundup in genetically engineered ooton, EPA allowed the unregistered “emergency” use of fluridone in Arkansas, contributing to the pesticide treadmill and increased chemical effects that are not fully evaluated.

Have concerns about waterbodies near you?  Follow the example of Concerned Citizens of Lake Iroquois.  Talk with your neighbors.  Get organized. Create a coalition of likeminded individuals and experts.  Contact city officials and hold them accountable until your voices are heard and pesticide policy changes are made. Stay determined and stay grounded with support. Contact Beyond Pesticides for help and links to resources.

The pesticide-free movement is growing is New England in Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, among other states. These successes are the product of grassroots organizing. Check out the many local policies throughout New England and across the country in our U.S. Map of Pesticide Reform Policies. Learn more about how local governments are placed under increasing pressure of Meeting the invasive species challenge.

Source: Shaina Kasper, Toxics Action Center, and Elizabeth Deutsch, Concerned Citizens of Lake Iroquois.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 11, 2018) Healthy, stable populations of bees and butterflies are best preserved in farm fields that are certified organic, according to an extensive, three-year study conducted by Swedish researchers at Lund University. The research, published last month in the journal Biological Conservation, highlights the benefits that organic farms provide pollinators by improving floral resources and forgoing the use of toxic pesticides. The data continues to support the need for a broad-scale conversion to more sustainable organic practices in the U.S. and internationally.

“This is the first large-scale study over the course of several years to show that organic farming has a consistent, stabilizing effect on pollinator diversity,” says Romain Carrié, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at CEC.

Researchers recorded observations of bumblebees, butterflies and flowering plant species at 10 organic and 9 conventional farms throughout Sweden for three years. Farms were compared across type, including cereal fields, temporary grasslands, and semi-natural grasslands. The study aimed to observe the spatio-temporal aspects (continuity of the number of different species in space and time) of pollinators and flowering species in these fields.

Results of the study found that, overall, organic farms had and sustained a higher rate of floral, bee, and butterfly diversity than conventional farms. The continuity of flowering species had the most significant impact on the number of bee and butterfly species observed by researchers. And continuity was generally higher on organic than conventional farms, with late-season flowerings on organic farms critical in ensuring that pollinator species return the next year.  For conventional farms, researchers believe that the fluctuations they observed for pollinating insects were most likely the the result of various insecticides depressing populations.

While this trend held in fields with cereal crops and temporary grasslands, semi-natural grasslands were not impacted by the type of farming that occurred. Scientists indicate that this outcome was likely because on these farms, management practices are similar between the two approaches. Specifically, because these fields are generally only used for grazing, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are not applied to these conventional plots.

Ultimately, Dr. Carrié is calling for an all of the above approach to protect declining pollinator populations. “This strongly suggests that both flower-enhancing management options and a reduced use of insecticides can help reverse pollinator declines,” Dr. Carrié concludes.

Previous studies back up the benefits of organic production to pollinators. A 2011 study found that a transition from conventional to organic farming can rapidly improve the number of plant and butterfly species on a farm. And a study published in 2012 found that organic farming practices improve the pollination success of strawberry farming.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to allow on conventional farms the use of synthetic herbicides that kill off floral diversity and pollinator habitat, and systemic insecticides, which kill bees directly as the plants they’re sprayed on take in the insecticide and express it in pollen, nectar, and dew drops the plant produces. In the U.S. only roughly one percent of farmland is certified organic, while the rest subjects pollinators and the plants that depend on them to regular chemical contamination.

But it does not have to be this way. This method of farming can help farms cope with the stressors of a changing climate, sequester carbon, improve human health, boost local economies, and become an essential part of a sustainable agricultural future. While it is true that for certain crops yields may be lower than those in conventional agriculture, the study notes that organic farms can provide an unmatched benefit for crops dependent on pollinator species: predictability and certainty of pollination services.

For more information on why organic is the right choice for your food dollars and our farming future, see Beyond Pesticides’ pages on the health and environmental benefits of organic production.

Source: Lund University

(Beyond Pesticides, October 10, 2018) Nearly one-third of General Mills shareholders called on the company last month to improve product stewardship and eliminate pesticides like bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides or the probable carcinogenic weed killer glyphosate from its supply chain. The proposal was put forward by nonprofit organization As You Sow, and Green Century Equity Fund (GCEF), a mutual fund. This is the latest public shareholder action GCEF has made in regards to corporate pesticide reform, with the company previously putting pressure on the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group for its allowance of pesticides within its supply chain. While the actions are encouraging, some advocates are urging shareholder groups to go beyond increased accountability and transparency and push companies to focus on sourcing organic to ensure that no pesticides make their way into food products.

The shareholder proposal ultimately garnered support from 31% of General Mills shareholders. “Shareholders believe the company can, and should, do more to protect the health of their supply chain and the public from toxic pesticides,” said Christy Spees, environmental health program manager at As You Sow to the StarTribune.

The proposal states, “While the company asserts that it is currently ‘document[ing] continuous improvement’ concerning environmental impacts from its supply chain for multiple crops, including corn, it has so far not demonstrated that it is measurably tracking and reporting pesticide use reduction.”

Although additional transparency could help shed light on the toxic pesticides making their way into popular General Mills products, sourcing only organic would eliminate any need for such tracking, as organic certification requires all synthetic inputs are vetted under organic standards. And, as a government program, this approach would provide more accountability than a third-party certification or an internal corporate tracking process.

Despite the reasonable request, which should be minimum standard practice for corporate food giants like General Mills, the company rejected the proposal and cited their support for conservation focused organizations and funding for pollinator habitat and research. This has brought concerns that the company is attempting to greenwash its image through marketing rather than take real steps to reduce pesticide use in its supply chain.

Beyond Pesticides has been party to a lawsuit against General Mills’ Nature Valley bars over the claim that the oats in the bars were “natural.” As part of a resolution for that case, General Mills agreed to remove the term “100% Natural Whole Grain Oats” from its products.

The company has also come under pressure recently after a report from the nonprofit group Environmental Working Group found glyphosate in General Mills’ premier cereal products, like Cheerios and Lucky Charms.

As evidence of the dangers that popular pesticides like glyphosate and neonicotinoids pose to health and the environment continues to grow, corporate food giants like General Mills will continue to come under fire for exposing their customers to these toxic chemicals, and permitting the contamination of environments where their food is sourced.

For more information on why organic sourcing is the right answer for the future of food, see Beyond Pesticides organic agriculture webpage.

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

Source: StarTribune

(Beyond Pesticides, October 9, 2018) In two separate moves, EPA placed the head of the Office of Children’s Health Protection on administrative leave and plans to dissolve its Office of the Science Advisor. These moves further degrade the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reliance on scientific input into its decision making process.

Ask your members of Congress to insist that the head of the Office of Children’s Health Protection and Office of the Science Advisor be reinstated at the highest level,

The Office of Children’s Health Protection was created by President Bill Clinton in 1997 to advise EPA on meeting its mandate to protect children from environmental health hazards. Children are generally more vulnerable to toxic chemicals than adults due to their small and developing bodies and because their size and activities result in greater exposures. Focusing on children’s health typically leads to more protective regulatory decisions.

Ruth Etzel, M.D., Ph.D., who was placed on non-disciplinary leave, became director of the office in 2015, after serving as a senior officer for environmental health research at the World Health Organization. She is a pediatrician and epidemiologist who has been a leader in children’s environmental health for 30 years. Recently, Dr. Etzel opposed EPA’s plan to allow farmworker children to apply the most toxic (“restricted use”) pesticides.

Removing Dr. Etzel from her position overseeing the office is seen by pediatricians and epidemiologists as a step toward eliminating the office and its critical work to protect children’s health. The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for her reinstatement.

In another action, EPA plans to eliminate the Office of the Science Advisor, which reports directly to the EPA administrator on science relating to agency regulations.

Both changes are a result of the agency’s reorganization that will result in placing several intermediates between science advisers and the head of EPA. In a New York Times op-ed, Philip Landrigan, M.D., renowned pediatrician and epidemiologist, and Lynn Goldman, M.D., pediatrician and former EPA assistant administrator for pesticides and toxic substances, wrote, “[T]here is no question that if Dr. Etzel is pushed aside, the chemical industry will benefit and America’s children will be harmed.” Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in an interview with Bloomberg, said, “By dissolving the science adviser’s office and putting it several layers down in ORD [Office of Research and Development], that greatly accelerates the decay of science advice within the EPA administrator’s office.”

It is vital that EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler receive the information that is needed to make decisions that affect the lives of children and protect our environment.

Ask your members of Congress to insist that the head of the Office of Children’s Health Protection and Office of the Science Advisor be reinstated at the highest level,

Letter to your elected members of Congress:Restore Voices for Children’s Protection and Science at EPA

Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is dismantling crucial offices that supply the agency with information that is critical for making important decisions on the health and future of our children. Without explanation, he has dismissed Ruth Etzel, M.D., Ph.D., head of the Office of Children’s Health Protection, and eliminated the Office of the Science Advisor.

Dr. Ruth Etzel became director of the office in 2015, after serving as a senior officer for environmental health research at the World Health Organization. She is a pediatrician and epidemiologist who has been a leader in children’s environmental health for 30 years. Recently, Dr. Etzel opposed EPA’s plan to allow farmworker children to apply the most toxic (“restricted use”) pesticides.

Removing Dr. Etzel from her position overseeing the office is seen by pediatricians and epidemiologists as a step toward eliminating the office and its critical work to protect children’s health. The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for her reinstatement.

In another action, EPA plans to eliminate the Office of the Science Advisor, which reports directly to the EPA administrator on science relating to agency regulations.

Both changes are a result of the agency’s reorganization that will result in placing several intermediates between science advisers and the head of EPA. In a New York Times op-ed, Philip Landrigan, M.D., renowned pediatrician and epidemiologist, and Lynn Goldman, M.D., pediatrician and former EPA assistant administrator for pesticides and toxic substances, wrote, “[T]here is no question that if Dr. Etzel is pushed aside, the chemical industry will benefit and America’s children will be harmed.” Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in an interview with Bloomberg, said, “By dissolving the science adviser’s office and putting it several layers down in ORD [Office of Research and Development], that greatly accelerates the decay of science advice within the EPA administrator’s office.”

Please insist that Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler reinstate Dr. Etzel and the Office of the Science Advisor in their critical roles as advisors to the Administrator of EPA.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, October 5, 2018) The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) is temporarily banning the use of any products containing the herbicide aminocyclopyrachlor to rights-of-way after finding widespread tree deaths along a scenic highway that cuts across the center of the state. While Oregon is the first state to ban the chemical, it is not the first instance of the pesticide killing stands of established, otherwise healthy trees. In 2014, chemical company DuPont settled a class action lawsuit totaling over $1.8 million in civil penalties after its aminocyclopyrachlor product Imprelis was cited for misbranding and failure to report adverse incidents of trees dying after applications.

Oregon first encountered evidence of abnormal growths, curling, and die-backs of coniferous trees along roadsides back in 2012. A report on tree damage produced by ODA in 2015 narrowed the cause down to the use of aminocyclopyrachlor-based herbicides, including DuPont’s Imprelis, as well as Bayer’s Perspective. At the time, ODA indicated the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) had sent letters to the agency requesting the cessation of aminocyclopyrachlor use along roadsides. Oregon officials indicate that the contractor did stop spraying the chemical in areas cited in the report.

An update to the first report, published in September 2018, found that die-off and damage increased alongside the highway where trees were sprayed. The elevated damage outlined by the updated report led to ODA’s temporary ban, which will be in effect until late March, 2019. The USFS also announced plans to log a section of the highway impacted by the tree die-off. “It’s a public safety issue . . .you just never know when a tree is going to go,” said Forest Service spokeswoman Kassidy Kern to Oregon Public Broadcasting. The move will log trees that are in some cases hundreds of years old.

This ecological tragedy and threat to public safety would have been easy to avoid if U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ODA had taken a more precautionary approach to regulating this new chemical. Aminocyclopyrachlor was given a conditional registration by EPA in 2009. At the time, DuPont was the primary registrant for the pesticide, and commercialized the product Imprelis for consumer use. However, soon after hitting the market, landscapers and golf courses began reporting the death of trees as a result of runoff or drift from the application of Imprelis to turfgrass areas. Reports initially indicated the deaths of millions of dollars worth of Norway spruce and white pine were mysterious, however it quickly became apparent that Imprelis was at fault. This led EPA to issue a stop use order to DuPont in 2011.

EPA cited the company for misbranding on the product’s label, as Imprelis did not include Norway spruce or white pine as a target species. The agency also later cited the company for not reporting documented adverse incidents. These regulatory actions culminated in DuPont voluntarily withdrawing Imprelis from the market, and paying the aforementioned civil fine of over $1.8 million in 2014.

However, although the product Imprelis was removed from the market, its active ingredient aminocyclopyrachlor remained. DuPont’s herbicide division was purchased by Bayer, which became the primary registrant for the herbicide, and produced the product Perspective. The only substantive change, made after the millions of dollars of damage, is that EPA did not approve Perspective for use on commercial turfgrass sites, such as lawns and golf courses. But the agency left in place allowed uses on “industrial” turfgrass sites, which include right-of-ways, highways, airports, railroads, as well as allowed uses on wildlife management areas. The chemical itself is still conditionally registered, however EPA has received outstanding data it required, and is now in the process of evaluating its acceptability for full registration. There is no indication from the agency that it will further restrict roadside uses.

Oregon Public Broadcasting indicates that the herbicide was sprayed by a contractor alongside Oregon highways for four years up until 2015, the year the ODA report was released. However, it was widely known as early as the second year of the spraying that this chemical caused significant damage to non-target trees. As a result, many are questioning why ODA took so long to issue its temporary ban on the chemical.

Aminocyclopyrachlor is a picolinic class chemical, which is similar to herbicides such as aminopyralid, clopyralid, and picloram. These chemicals are selective, targeting weeds but not affecting grass species. However, when, for instance, cows or horses feed on hay or other grasses sprayed with these chemicals, they can pass through these animals and end up in their manure. When composted, manure containing even minute levels of these chemicals, as low as 1 to 10 parts per billion, can result in damage to vegetables and other sensitive crops grown in the contaminated media. The U.S. composting council lists this class of chemicals as persistent herbicides, and has called on manufacturers to withdraw their registrations, and EPA and state agencies to take decisive action to stop economic and environmental damage caused by these chemicals.

Right-of-way management does not have to involve the regular use of persistent herbicides that could harm non-target species. Mechanical trimmers, biological controls such as goats, and the establishment of low-maintenance native vegetation provide non-toxic alternatives to pesticide use. More information about roadside weed management can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ article, The Right Way to Vegetation Management.

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

Source: Oregon Public Broadcasting, ODA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Sustainable Pulse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for helping to protect and uphold organic integrity!

Please take action now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: DTN Progressive Farmer

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

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

Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper!

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

Sample letter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Euractiv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity Press Release; OIG Report