(Beyond Pesticides, December 21, 2016) A California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) report of all pesticide related illnesses in the state in 2014 identifies 1,685 cases “potentially involving health effects from pesticide exposure,” combining exposures from agricultural and non-agricultural use. Of the 798 cases associated with non-agricultural use, 18% of them (146 cases) involved exposure in children under 18 years old. The exposure rates are alarming, and only strengthen efforts by local activists in counties like Tulare to protect children from pesticide exposure. According to the report, Tulare County has the highest number of reported illnesses related to pesticide exposure at 78, followed by Santa Cruz County with 67.

The report, Summary of Results from the California Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program 2014, provides a summary of illnesses identified by the Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program (PISP), a program under DPR. Of the 1,685 cases potentially involving health effects from pesticide exposure reported, DPR epidemiologists determined that 1,073 of those cases were “at least possibly associated” with pesticide exposure, representing a 5% decrease from 2013. However, even though the number of associated cases decreased in 2014, PISP did see a 14% rise in the number of associated episodes, defined as “an event in which a single source possibly, probably, or definitely exposed one or more people (cases) to pesticides.” The number of cases associated with non-agricultural pesticide use also increased, up 16% from 2013 for a total of 798 cases. Of those 798 cases, 34% of them were defined as occupational, meaning that they occurred while the affected people were at work. PISP also looked in injuries to agricultural field workers, finding that 148 workers were affected by pesticide exposure in 25 different episodes, with 40 being the largest number of workers injured at one time.

These increases are indicative of a need for increased protections from pesticide exposure for the people of California. Since this fall, public health advocates have been at odds with the state over a proposed rule intended to protect children by establishing buffer zones around schools. The proposed rule, Pesticide Use Near Schoolsites, proposes only limited restrictions for certain agricultural pesticide applications near schools and child day care facilities. It would require farmers to notify public schools and child day care facilities when “certain pesticide applications made for the production of an agricultural commodity near a school site are planned in the coming year and also a few days prior to the applications.” For pesticides applied via aircraft, airblast sprayer, sprinkler chemigation, and fumigation, there must be a minimum ¼ mile buffer around the school or child day care facility. Advocates say that while the move by CDPR is a step in the right direction, it is not rigorous enough, buffer zones are well below the one mile distance necessary, and does not adequately protect the most vulnerable populations from pesticide exposure. The rule does not include private K-12 schools or family day care homes, a move that according to CDPR documents is due to the potential for increased costs to businesses and regulated entities. Additionally, the rule only applies to pesticide application activities Monday through Friday, during the hours of 6am to 6pm. Advocates say that these are unacceptable holes in this proposed rule and must be addressed before the final rule is published.

In Tulare County, the place with the highest number of reported pesticide related illnesses in 2014, more than 75 parents, teachers and advocates for social and environmental justice marched this fall to protest DPR’s draft rules for pesticides use near schools. Led by members of the Tulare County Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety (TCCAPS), the protesters say that the regulations fall short in protecting school children and staff from pesticides that drift from nearby agricultural spraying.  Parents and teachers want to extend the buffer zone to one mile, as it has been studied that pesticide drift can travel even greater than a mile away from its original application site. In fact, pesticide particles can attach themselves to air masses and be deposited across the globe. Agricultural pesticide exposure is linked to serious childhood health concerns, including asthma, autism, cancer and developmental and neurological damages.

In 2014, the California Department of Health released a report, Agricultural Pesticide Use Near Public Schools, that for the first time documented the use of the most hazardous agricultural pesticides near public schools in 15 of California’s agricultural counties. The report shed light on the use of more than a half a million pounds of 144 different chemicals that could be a cause for health concerns used within ¼ mile of public schools. Tulare County had the highest percentage of schools with pesticides of public health concern applied within ¼ mile —63%, or 123 of Tulare County’s 194 public schools. Racial disparities were also identified. According to the report, “In the 15 counties assessed, Hispanic children were 46% more likely than White children to attend schools with any use of pesticides within ¼ mile, compared to children attending schools with no pesticide use within ¼ mile.” Even more striking, the report finds that, “This difference was more pronounced with increased pesticide use, as Hispanic children were 91% more likely than White children to attend a school in the top quartile of pesticide usage, when compared to children attending schools with no pesticide use nearby.”

In Santa Cruz County, activists are also concerned about the study findings, which placed them second in the state for most pesticide related illnesses right behind Tulare. Lucia Calderon, organizer of the statewide coalition Safe Ag Safe Schools, speaking about Santa Cruz County, said “it is concerning to us that a relatively small county has such a large proportion of illnesses related to agricultural pesticides, especially in a place where treated fields are so close to schools and neighborhoods, it is crucial that the DPR takes action to truly reduce the incidence of pesticide drift and subsequent poisonings.” Ms. Calderon also advocates for one-mile buffer zones around schools, largely due to a report published in 2011 that found 82 percent of pesticide exposure occurs more than a quarter-mile away from the application site. “A ¼ is not enough to protect from pesticide drift and illness,” she said Tuesday, “to protect public health and make sure agricultural pesticide illness is truly reduced, Santa Cruz County and the entire state need full-time, full-mile buffer zones around schools.”

Beyond Pesticides does not believe that the ¼ mile buffer zone is rigorous enough to protect public health from pesticide drift. Other deficiencies in the proposed regulation include the rule’s limited scope in only addressing public schools, leaving out private K-12 schools and private day care facilities. The time to submit comments on this issue has passed, as of December 9, 2016, but there are still ways you can get involved. Learn more about the dangers of pesticide drift by looking at our fact sheet on pesticide drift. Also, as a food consumer, the best way to protect farmworkers, their children, and rural communities from pesticide use and exposure is to buy organic food in the grocery store. Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience  identifies the range of pesticides used in chemical-intensive food production that is eliminated from use in organic production. To learn more about the campaign for social justice food labeling and the Agricultural Justice Project (AJP), see Social Justice Food Labeling: From food to table. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage.

Source: Register Pajaronian, CDPR

All unattributed positions are that of Beyond Pesticides.

(Beyond Pesticides, December 20, 2016) A long-awaited and contentious scientific meeting convened by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate wrapped up its review last week, with the 15-member scientific advisory panel split on their determination,  and some considering a “suggestive evidence” classification. The panel’s charge was to evaluate EPA’s recent proposal that the widely used herbicide should be considered “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” despite a 2015 determination from the International Agency for Research on Cancer than glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” with “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity” based on laboratory studies.  The panel now has roughly three months to provide a final recommendation to the agency, which is likely to influence EPA’s final classification of the herbicide.

The meeting was split into four days, with one and a half days committed to the panel receiving public comments. As veteran reporter Cary Gillam notes in The Huffington Post, representatives from Monsanto were allotted over three hours to provide evidence against a cancer determination, while public health advocates including Beyond Pesticides and allies were only allotted between 5-15 minutes to make their case. [Read Beyond Pesticides’ comments to the Glyphosate Review Panel here.] Monsanto, for its part, spent much of its allotted time trying to discredit Kenneth Portier, PhD, who they did not want on the panel, and accused of having a conflict of interest partly because his brother is, according to industry trade group Croplife America, “a noted and vehement anti-glyphosate activist.”  Prior to the meeting, Croplife worked behind the scenes to remove another panel member, Peter Infante, Dr.PH, for what it claimed was his bias against the chemical industry, and the likelihood he would give more weight to independent, rather than industry-funded science. Despite his removal and industry allegations, Dr. Infante gave a public comment to the panel, providing substantial evidence on glyphosate’s carcinogenic properties, and suggestions on ensuring more robust epidemiological data.

The panel leveled a number of criticisms for how EPA conducted its cancer review. Some recommended that the agency consider other forms of glyphosate beyond the pure acid isopropylamine salt form. According to Bloomberg BNA, Eric Johnson, PhD, asked the agency for data comparing cancer rates between farmers who spray glyphosate and factory workers who produce it. This comparison would help the panel determine whether it was pure glyphosate that was cancer-causing or the mixture of glyphosate with other inert ingredients. However, EPA indicated that it did not have jurisdiction to gather that data, and alarmingly, industry representatives also refused to supply it. “We’re asking EPA to be transparent, but we’re not seeing that from industry,” Dr. Johnson said to Bloomberg BNA. “These are the types of things that make people suspicious of industry.”

The scientific panel also critiqued EPA’s search criteria for sourcing studies to be included in the review. There were disagreements with EPA’s decision to discount certain studies based on “low quality/value/study power” rankings by the agency, as well as the exclusion of certain terms, for example the term water was excluded when searching for studies because the agency didn’t want ecological aquatic data, but this in turn meant that any potential drinking water studies were also excluded. As a result, EPA’s weight of evidence approach was skewed towards industry data.

While the panel’s review will make a significant impact on EPA’s classification for glyphosate, even if the chemical were determined to be likely carcinogenic by the agency, it is unlikely that it would precipitate its cancellation. That is because, more often than not, when a pesticide shows adverse effects EPA will simply require label changes or limited restrictions that change, but does not eliminate the risk associated with a chemical. Health Canada’s recent reevaluation and proposal for glyphosate provides an analogous regulatory example.

To hasten glyphosate’s elimination from our environment, there are a range of actions that concerned people can take today. Start by buying organic, as this will support an agricultural system that is not reliant on, and in fact never permits the use of glyphosate or any other toxic synthetic pesticides. You can also urge your local grocery store and garden center to stop selling glyphosate, or any product that has ever been sprayed with the chemical. Possibly the most effective move you can make is to get active in your local community. Beyond Pesticides has resources, including a newly released Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform, to help folks concerned about glyphosate take action to reduce and eliminate its use.

For more information about glyphosate, its cancer determination, and what you can do see Beyond Pesticides’ fact sheet on glyphosate, comments to EPA review panel, and the Pesticides and You article, Glyphosate Causes Cancer: Is Monsanto Ready for the Consumer Response?

Source: Huffington Post, Bloomberg BNA, Agri-Pulse

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 19, 2016) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week filed a complaint against a Syngenta research farm in Kauai, Hawaii for exposing a dozen agricultural workers to an unregistered insecticide on the farm in early 2016. Syngenta Seeds, LLC is facing over $4.8 million in fines from EPA for allegedly violating multiple federal pesticide regulations meant to protect agricultural workers. At the time of the incident, 19 agricultural workers went to work on fields freshly sprayed with the insecticide chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate insecticide. The incident with this highly neurotoxic chemical sent 10 workers to the hospital for medical treatment.

EPA’s complaint states that Syngenta Hawaii LLC misused the pesticide “Lorsban Advanced” and that violated EPA’s worker protection standard. Due to its neurotoxicity, EPA banned chlorpyrifos for residential uses in 2000, but retained most agricultural use. EPA maintains that Syngenta failed to provide a waiting period for the workers to re-enter the fields. Additionally, Syngenta did not provide workers with personal protective equipment, as well as proper decontamination supplies once the exposure had occurred.

At the time of the incident, an inspector from the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) was present on the Syngenta farm, which triggered an immediate investigation from the state. In March, HDOA notified EPA of the matter, which led to a follow-up investigation from the agency later in April that resulted in the civil fines. Residents living on the Hawaiian Islands are subject to ongoing pesticide exposure from experimental farms because of the state’s pristine growing conditions that make it a prime area for agrichemical companies to test new, experimental chemicals and crops, including new genetically engineered (GE) crops. Data released last year reveals that high levels of restricted use pesticides, in some cases almost double the pounds per acre average of other states, are being used in Kauai County. According to the Center for Food Safety, in 2014 alone there were 1,381 field test sites in Hawaii, compared to only 178 sites in California –a large agricultural state. Most of these crops are engineered to tolerate applications of herbicides and other pesticides. Testing these crops means repeated spraying of hazardous chemicals near neighborhoods, schools, and waterways. Residents of the Hawaiian Islands that live, work, or go to school near these fields are subject to incessant pesticide spraying, as the climate provides a year-round growing season for GE crops. A May 2014 report found 25 herbicides, 11 insecticides, and 6 fungicides in Hawaii’s waterways, underscoring resident concerns for both the land and human health.

Worrisome pesticide poisoning incidents are common in Hawaii. In August 2016, Earthjustice sent EPA a letter to EPA requesting that the agency notify HDOA of its chronic failure to carry out its regulatory and enforcement responsibility under federal law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Earthjustice urged EPA to rescind HDOA’s primary enforcement authority (the authority delegated to the state under FIFRA) unless corrective action was taken. Problems identified by Earthjustice include a failure to enforce pesticide use violations and a large backlog of pesticide complaints and investigations dating back to as early as 2008. Had the HDOA inspector not been onsite at the time of the exposure, this incident could have been another incident left to be determined and added to the backlogged incident reports.

EPA has been warning HDOA repeatedly since 2012 that it has failed to adequately enforce pesticide laws and has allowed an unacceptable backlog of inspection files to grow. Instead of increasing its staff, HDOA’s enforcement staff has been steadily shrinking, and the number of inspections and enforcements have been decreasing every year. EPA’s most recent annual review of HDOA’s performance noted there were approximately 700 inspection files in need of review, some dating back to 2008. As a result, there have not only been enforcement delays, but some cases can no longer be acted on because the statute of limitations expired while files sat on HDOA’s desk.

Beyond Pesticides continues to be an ardent supporter of common sense protections from pesticides and their associated use in agriculture and on GE crops. If you too support these issues, please visit our website, give us a call at 202-543-5450, or email us at [email protected] to learn more about the issues and find ways to get involved in your local community.

Source: KHON2

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 16, 2016) A new meta-analysis has challenged the belief that neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticide seed coatings have little to no effect on the health of beneficial predatory insect populations —on the contrary, researchers have found that the seed coatings impact predatory insects as much as broadcast applications of other insecticides. The study, authored by Margaret Douglas, PhD and John Tooker, PhD, of Penn State University, solidifies previous work that shows beneficial predators are affected through secondary poisoning as a result of neonicotinoid seed coatings.

For their meta-analysis, the researchers combined the results of approximately 1,000 observations for field studies across North America and Europe that had looked at the effect of neonicotinoid seed coatings on predatory insects. The researchers compiled datasets that compare predatory insect abundance in plots that are planted with coated seeds to control plots, which are either managed without insecticides, or managed with pyrethroid insecticides. As predicted, the population of predatory insects are reduced in the plots where coated seeds are planted, compared to the plots that are untreated by insecticides. Additionally, the meta-analysis finds that coated seeds affected predatory insect populations similarly to soil and broadcast applications of pyrethroids.

Generally, these findings indicate that the use of neonicotinoid seed treatments, which are intended to decrease the use of pesticides, can actually increase the necessity of these toxic chemicals by killing off natural, beneficial insect predators. Thus, these seed treatments are ineffective and cause more harm than good. It would better serve farmers and the environment to actively encourage natural predation, rather than rely on toxic chemicals that only perpetuate the dangerous cycle of escalating pesticide use.

In 2015, another study authored by Dr. Douglas demonstrates that natural enemy insects could be affected by neonic-coated seeds, through a previously unexplored pathway. Dr. Douglas found that seed treatments using the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, a toxic insecticide that is supposed to affect pest slugs, instead bioaccumulated and then transferred through the slugs into their insect predators, impairing or killing >60%. This resulted in a loss of crop due to a decline in beneficial insect predators and an increase in pest slug population.

This meta-analysis adds merit to the body of research regarding neonicotinoids and their impacts on pollinators and other non-target beneficial species. Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affects the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. While the issue of pollinator declines is diverse and complex, with many factors potentially contributing to the cause, pesticides have consistently been implicated as a key factor, not only through immediate bee deaths, but also through sublethal exposure causing changes in bee reproduction, navigation and foraging. Further research has demonstrated that neonicotinoids create increased vulnerability to diseases through exposure, impact a wide range of habitats, and have persistent, long term implications.

Neonicotinoids are undoubtedly highly toxic to honey bees, and EPA acknowledges this fact. However, little is being done at the federal level to protect bees and other pollinators from these pesticides. With unlimited resources behind them, the chemical industry —the pesticide manufacturers, landscaping, horticultural and agricultural trade groups— have all come out to deflect attention away from pesticides as a major culprit in pollinator decline. To learn more about how industry agents try to manipulate the message to say that neonics are not the main cause, see Beyond Pesticides’ report addressing industry myths on pollinator decline.

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

Source: Science Direct, PeerJ

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 15, 2016) On Monday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the Certification of Pesticide Applicators final rule on restricted use pesticides (RUP) for publication in the Federal Register. According to EPA, the rule creates a national minimum age requirement of 18 for certified applicators, requires all applicators to renew their certifications every five years, and establishes “first time annual safety training for persons working under the direct supervision of a certified applicator.” States have up to three years to create their programs to implement the new rules for RUPs, and can build upon existing programs if they are equivalent or exceed the updated standards. While EPA’s rule represents a tightening of the restricted use provision, critics have long maintained that all persons handling restricted use pesticides —including those who work for companies that work in and around  homes and communities— should be certified because the supervision requirement does not ensure adequate oversight and protection. Those supervising non-certified applicators are not required to be on site, but, can be in telephone contact.

Restricted use pesticides are not available for purchase by the general public, and may only be applied by a certified pesticide applicator or a non-certified individual working under their direct supervision. To highlight the danger associated with the use of these chemicals, EPA estimates that these changes in oversight will save between $13.2 and 24.3 million per year, directly attributable to fewer acute pesticide incidents to people. However, in its cost-benefit analysis, EPA failed to quantify the willingness to pay to avoid possible symptoms of pesticide exposure, and only estimated the avoided medical costs and lost wages.

The EPA rule will cover all individuals that apply restricted use pesticides, including private applicators (individuals certified to use pesticides in agricultural settings), commercial applicators (individuals certified to use pesticides in non-agricultural settings), and those under the direct supervision of certified applicators. It is important to note that many states have already implemented a number of EPA’s standards. States have primary enforcement authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by agreement with EPA. However, these rules provide a new floor from which states can craft further measures to protect public and environmental health from highly toxic chemicals.

EPA’s rule establishes certification categories for private and commercial applicators covering higher risk application methods, including soil fumigation, aerial pest control, seed treatment, and forest pest control. At present, federal rules for private applicators have no specialized categories of certification, and commercial applicators require no additional certification to use specific application methods. Moreover, all certified applicators would be required to re-certify after a five-year period. Under current federal rules, certified applicators are only required to take a certification test once in their lifetime.

Many businesses and farm groups believe the new standards are too burdensome on pesticide applicators, citing increased time to meet training requirements and increased costs. However, with recent tragic pesticide poisonings, where preliminary evidence has been clear that pesticide applicators made gross errors in judgement and were possibly negligent, it is more important than ever for applicators to raise their standards of competency in making applications of hazardous pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides submitted comments to EPA last December when the rule revision was open for public comment. It is unfortunate that the standards were weakened from the originally proposed recertification every three years to every five years. The three-year recertification requirement would have harmonized the disparate recertification requirements across states. It is critical that states, which are charged with oversight for pesticide compliance and enforcement, are provided with the necessary resources to ensure pesticide applicators and applications are compliant with the new rules, and can conduct thorough investigations of reported incidents.

A current list of pesticides classified by EPA as restricted use is  available on the agency’s website. While strengthening requirements regarding the use of these chemicals has been viewed as a necessary update, public health and environmental advocates have called for an overall shift away from toxic pesticide use, given the availability of safer alternative practices and products. The advocates have urged EPA to utilize its FIFRA authority to protect against “unreasonable adverse effects” by withdrawing registrations of pesticides for which there are less toxic alternatives. In fact, the agency acknowledges the qualitative benefits  of the new rule to include reduced chronic effects, such as Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer, Parkinson’s disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma to workers, handlers, and farmworker families. See Beyond Pesticides’  Pesticide Induced Diseases Database for more information on the relationship between public health effects and pesticides.

While any strengthening of applicator standards is commendable, they do not solve the complex pesticide problems associated with pesticide mixtures and emerging science that threaten the functioning of organisms and ecosystems.  EPA’s rule represents an incremental step forward. It is necessary to simultaneously reduce the overall approval, sale and use of pesticides that are proven to be hazardous to human and environmental health and for which there are safer alternatives. Through experience, Beyond Pesticides has found that nearly every pest problem can be adequately addressed through close adherence to cultural, mechanical, structural practices. Within an organic systems approach that seeks to avoid pesticide use, ecologically compatible biological products and least-toxic pesticides can be employed to address remaining issues. Organic methods of growing food and controlling pests are now tried and true, and present a stark contrast to the conventional, chemical-intensive pest control industry. Rarely, if ever, should such highly toxic chemicals that may result in life-altering health effects be employed by any individual. To learn more about the benefits of supporting organic, see Beyond Pesticides  program page. For information on how to deal with pest problems through least toxic means, see  ManageSafe database.

Sources: EPA, Farm Futures

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

(Beyond Pestimcides,  December 14, 2016) Preliminary research presented this week at the British Ecological Society’s annual meeting identifies yet another troublesome connection between the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and the health of bees, a critical pollinator species. The research links neonicotinoid use with an impaired ability of bees to learn to vibrate flowers and shake out the pollen, which is necessary for fertilization in crops like tomatoes and potatoes. This research is consistent with other studies that link neonicotinoid use to reduced learning in bees, as well as other impacts such as those on their colony size and  reproduction, as well as contributions to overall declines.

Neonicotinoids (neonics) pesticides are a relatively new class of chemicals that affect plants in a systemic way, moving through the plants vacular system and expressed through pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets.  These pesticides,
:which include  imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, have been found by  a growing body of scientific literature  to be linked to Colony Collapse Disorder, a phenomenon where bees experience rapid declines from hive abandonment and bee die-off,  and  pollinator decline in general.  Neonics are associated with  decreased foraging  and navigational ability, as well as increased vulnerability to pathogens and parasites as a result of suppressed bee immune systems. In addition to toxicity to bees, pesticides like neonicotinoids have been shown to also adversely affect  birds,  aquatic organisms and contaminate soil  and  waterways, and  overall biodiversity.

For this study, researchers used two separate bumblebee colonies and split each colony into three different groups. Two of the groups were then exposed to the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam by being fed a solution, while the third group of each colony served as the control and was not exposed to the pesticide. The solution contained thiamethoxam at a rate of two parts per billion, or 10ppb of the pesticide, a concentration the researchers say mimics the exposure bees would find in crop fields. According to the report, “After each visit to the buffalo-bur flowers used in the experiment, the bees in the control group learned how to buzz more pollen out of the anthers. But those in the 10ppb group did not improve at all.” This is significant because while all flowers do not require shaking by bees to release their pollen, other flowers require work on the part of bees to ensure pollen is transferred.

Penelope Whitehorn of the University of Stirling in Scotland, who led the study, explained the process in this way: “Bees produce a vibration — or buzz — to shake pollen out of these anthers like a pepper pot. The bee lands on a flower, curls her body around the anther and grips the base with her mandibles. She then rapidly contracts the flight muscles to produce the vibration, without beating her wings.” She called the findings “striking,” going on to say that “[t]he implication is the bees take less pollen back to the colonies and the colonies will be less successful, meaning there may be fewer pollinators overall,” making it the latest devastating effect of neonicotinoids on bees. The study will be submitted to a scientific journal next year.

In response to the findings, a spokesman for the agrochemical company Syngenta, which manufactures thiamethoxam, argued that exposure to thiamethoxam in the field is usually closer to 3ppb instead of 10ppb, but he made no further comments to discredit the connection between the chemical and the ability of bees to learn how to shake off pollen. This is not surprising, as neonics  have long been identified as a major culprit in bee decline by independent scientists and beekeepers, yet chemical manufacturers like Bayer and Syngenta have focused on  other issues, such as the varroa mite.

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

Source:   The Guardian

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 13, 2016) Net Loss, a new report released by the Center for Food Safety (CFS), indicates the use of neonicotinoid-coated seeds is exactly that, an economic drain for farmers that only results in the indiscriminate poisoning for non-target wildlife, such as pollinators. The report is a follow up to a 2014 report, Heavy Costs: Weighing the Value of Neonicotinoid Insecticides in Agriculture, which concluded  that neonic seeds bring greater costs than benefits to farmers. Later that year, a study published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which  looks specifically at the economic value of neonic coated soybeans, made similar determinations —insecticide seed coating provide little or no overall benefit in controlling insects or improving yield or quality.

CFS’s new report cites  numerous new studies published over the past several years that reinforce the group’s original determination on the realized benefits pesticide-coated seeds provide to farmers. Front and center in the report are preliminary results from the European Union’s suspension on the use of neonics on certain agricultural crops. The report finds that after the 2013 EU moratorium, despite cries from the agrichemical industry of rampant crop failures, yields actually increased. For maize, the EU saw a 5.7% rise, and oilseed rape (canola) witnessed a 14.4% increase in yields. Much like the hype of genetically engineered crops’ value, which a recent New York Times article showed to hold up poorly to scrutiny, it appears the agrichemical industry has again sold American farmers a bill of goods. Indeed, in every cropping system investigated by CFS, crop yields showed negative, negligible or inconsistent differences based on whether or not a crop seed was coated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

While the benefits to farmers are insignificant, the harm neonicotinoids cause to the wider environment is of serious concern. The dust kicked from planting coated seeds can drift off-field and contaminate field margins with high levels of these toxic pesticides. Indeed, the report cites findings that, depending on the crop, only five percent of the active chemical in a seed coating actually enters a crop. The other 95% of the chemical makes its way into the environment, either through seed dust, soil contamination, or water runoff. Just last month, Health Canada announced it would ban applications of the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, as a result of dangers to aquatic life near agricultural fields. Neonics have been widely implicated as the most significant factor impacting the decline of pollinators around the globe. Effects range from acute toxicity and death, to chronic impacts such decreased memory and learning, inability for bees workers to find their way back to the hive, decreased queen fertility, and overall increased susceptibility of the colony to viruses, disease, and parasites.

Certain U.S. states are beginning to consider action to restrict the use of coated seeds. The state of Connecticut recently required the development of best management practices to avoid pesticide drift from dust kicked up during seed planting. And in Minnesota, where a recent executive order from Governor Dayton requires proof of a pest emergency before spraying foliar neonicotinoid applications, the Governor and Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) also recommended legislation to give MDA the authority to regulate coated seeds. This was necessary because in the U.S., coated seeds are considered exempt articles under federal pesticide law (the federal fungicide insecticide and rodenticide act, or FIFRA).   As such, they are not subject to the same protocols and regulations governing pesticide use. A recent lawsuit from CFS challenges this loophole in pesticide law, but a decision handed down late last month affirmed the exemption, indicating that, “The Court is most sympathetic to the plight of our bee population and beekeepers. Perhaps the EPA should have done more to protect them”¦” Thus, as EPA has so far showed its unwillingness to act to help bees and beekeepers, it is up to states and local governments to push for common-sense restrictions on these toxic products. The more local governments act, the more pressure it puts on EPA and the federal government to adequately address this crisis. After over a decade of year-after-year historic declines, it is only a matter of time before the true Net Loss of this crisis is revealed.

If you’re interested in doing more to become active in your community to stop and reverse pollinator declines, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective program page. Become educated on the science, and start your advocacy efforts by contacting Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected].

Source: Center for Food Safety

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

(Beyond Pesticides,  December 12, 2016)   On November 23, Bill Bader of  Bader farms, Missouri’s largest peach farm with over 1,000 acres and 110,000 peach trees, filed a suit against the multinational, agrichemical giant Monsanto. Mr. Bader seeks compensation for extensive damags to his peach trees, which he blames on the illegal, or non-labeled, use of the toxic herbicide dicamba, brought on by sales of Monsanto’s new, genetically engineered (GE), dicamba-tolerant crops. Mr. Bader is projected to lose $1.5 million in revenue from the crop damage. The case was filed in the Circuit Court of Dunklin County, an area that has been hit especially hard by alleged illegal dicamba spraying. The farm’s insurance company refuses to cover damages from any illegal herbicide use. Without compensation for the damages, the farm risks going out of business. The illegal use of dicamba in this case is not an isolated incident. There have been many disputes in the Midwest over the  illegal spraying of dicamba and subsequent crop damage due to pesticide drift.  Numerous news reports over the past two  months in southern soybean growing regions have found that many farmers are, in response to weeds on their farms that have become resistant to glyphosate (Roundup), illegally applying dicamba-based herbicide that are not labeled for use on Monsanto’s new GE crops.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deregulated Monsanto’s dicamba-tolerant Roundup Ready 2 Xtend^â„¢  soybeans and Bollgard II ^®XtendFlexâ„¢ cotton in January 2015. but it was not until November 2016 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered the use of specific dicamba formulations, Xtendimax^â„¢   and VaporGrip^â„¢ for use these crops. Monsanto describes the dicamba-tolerant GE crops as “designed to provide farmers with more consistent, flexible control of weeds, especially tough-to-manage and glyphosate-resistant weeds  to maximize crop yield potential.” What was viewed by industry and EPA several years ago as a unique occurrence, weed resistance is now acknowledged to be a serious economic problem for farmers. While the agrichemical industry and its researchers can no longer ignore weed resistance  to pesticides, it continues to promote more chemical applications in GE crops as the solution, despite the success of organic systems.

Mr. Bader  claims  that dicamba, has killed more than 30,000 peach trees since 2015.  Current dicamba formulations are extremely susceptible to pesticide drift.  Dicamba is harmful even after it is deposited on target crops due to its ability to vaporize off leafy surfaces at moderate temperatures, where it is then reintroduced into the atmosphere.  A  study published by Pennsylvania State scientists  in late 2015 found dicamba drift was “frequently responsible for sublethal, off-target damage” to plants and insects. Researchers found that even very low rates of dicamba herbicide exposure negatively impacted plant flowering, and thus insect pollination.  Increased illegal dicamba use is suspected to have been on the rise since 2015, when Monsanto released their new dicamba-resistant line of crops.

Monsanto’s previous herbicide of choice, Roundup,  has faced issues with weed resistance.  Over the years, weeds and undesirable vegetation have adapted and evolved to have a  genetic resistance to Roundup  and its active ingredient  glyphosate.  This led Monsanto to reformulate their seeds to be resistant to dicamba, which still shows effectiveness against weeds.  The herbicide formulations registered by are said to be less volatile and safer than previous dicamba formulations. Since Xtend crops were registered in 2015, this left a one year gap in which farmers were provided a new seed to cultivate with, yet left without a herbicide approved for use.  Many farmers, including Bill Bader, surmise that this led to the illegal, off-label use of other volatile dicamba formulations.

“The losses will certainly be in the millions,” said Bev Randles of Randles & Splittgerber, a Kansas City law firm in a statement to St. Luois Post Dispatch.  The impact of the damages to Bader’s farm are, “more long-term and farther-reaching,” according to Randles.  With Bader Farms expected to double its financial loses by next year, they predict the farm will be out of the peach business by 2019.

The lawsuit asserts that illegal spraying could have been more limited, if not prevented, had Monsanto not released the seeds before the subsequent herbicide XtendiMax was approved for use.  “The issue here is one of ”˜foreseeability,’” said Ms. Randles. “It was entirely foreseeable that if Monsanto released the Xtend products onto the market that farmers would seek a way to protect those Xtend seeds from damage and they would do that by spraying dicamba.”

Monsanto did take steps to notify and inform farmers before the 2016 growing season that the use of dicamba was not yet approved for in-crop use, and expressed that they do not condone the illegal use of any pesticide.  Monsanto, in a recent statement, said the lawsuit, “attempts to shift responsibility away from individuals who knowingly and intentionally broke state and federal law and harmed their neighbors in the process. Responsibility for these actions belongs to those individuals alone.”

This is the first lawsuit that has been waged against Monsanto over illegal dicamba spraying, and is supported by Beyond Pesticides.  Dicamba  has been linked to damage of the kidney and liver, neurotoxicity, and developmental impacts.  While Missouri lawmakers  contemplate increasing fines  on illegal pesticide applications, ultimately, this problem will need to be addressed on a structural scale, as chemical-intensive farmers will need to diversify the crops they plant and implement other cultural practices to deter weeds, such as cover crops, crop rotation, and intercropping. Food distribution systems will also need to shift to accommodate greater diversity in farmer fields.  Organic agriculture  represents a time-tested approach to managing weeds and avoiding resistance problems that plague GE cropping systems. With organic, the use of toxic synthetic herbicides and GE seeds is prohibited, and farmers must craft an organic systems plan aimed at improving soil health and managing pests and weeds should they arise.

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

Source:  St Louis Post Dispatch

(Beyond Pesticides, December 9, 2016) Save the Date! Beyond Pesticides is pleased to announce the 35^th National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Lands: Ecological and Organic Strategies for Regeneration, which will be held April 28-29, 2017 at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Some of the lineup of the keynote speakers for the upcoming forum include: Liz Carlisle, author of Lentil Underground; Don Huber, PhD, professor emeritus of plant pathology and glyphosate expert, Purdue University; and Jim Riddle, organic farmer and former chair of the USDA National Organic Standards Board.

The 2017 Forum is convened by Beyond Pesticides and Organic Consumers Association. We are collaborating with local groups, such as Pollinator Friendly Alliance, Giving Tree Gardens, Humming for Bees, Kids for Saving Earth, Blue Fruit Farm, Students for Sustainability, Birchwood Cafe, Seward Community Co-op and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). The Forum offers a unique opportunity during a critical time in our nation’s history to chart a course that upholds principles and values, policies and practices, that protect health and the environment. The Forum delves into key issues of the day, such as pollinator decline, a problem linked to  pesticide-intensive landscape and agricultural land management, and genetic engineered crops, whose production elevates pesticide dependency on hazardous chemicals and induces pest resistance. The Forum brings together speakers on the latest science on pesticides, from neonicotinoids to glyphosate, contrasted with practitioners utilizing organic management practices in agriculture, parks, athletic fields, and rangeland. In sum, the Forum seeks to help hone public understanding of the hazards of pesticides and the emerging science on adverse effects, while delving into local policy changes that are driving pesticide bans and incentivizing ecological and regenerative practices. The Forum includes a broad range of speakers and collaborators, and will provide an opportunity for grassroots advocates, scientists, policy makers, and land managers to discuss effective strategies and practices that work collectively for a sustainable future.

Register Today

Reserve your spot at the 2017 Forum and get the Early Bird Discount rate ($5 off). As an Early Bird buyer, you can get a general rate for $40, a student rate for $20, or a business rate for $170. Scholarships are also available. All ticket price rates include organic meals: on Friday, organic beer, wine, and hors d’oeuvre; on Saturday, organic breakfast, lunch, and dinner, plus organic beer and wine at the evening reception. For more details about registration, click here.

Featured Speakers (preliminary list)

Liz Carlisle is the author of Lentil Underground, which chronicles the sustainable agriculture movement in her home state of Montana. Carlisle is a Lecturer in the School of Earth, Energy, and Environmental Sciences at Stanford University, where she teaches courses on food and agriculture, sustainability transition, and environmental communication.   She holds a Ph.D. in Geography from UC Berkeley and she formerly served as Legislative Correspondent for Agriculture and Natural Resources in the Office of U.S. Senator Jon Tester.   Recognized for her academic writing with the Elsevier Atlas Award, which honors research with social impact, Liz has also published numerous pieces for general audience readers, in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Business Insider, and Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Don Huber, PhD  is Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology at Purdue University, holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Idaho, and a Ph.D. from Michigan State University. He was Cereal Pathologist at the University of Idaho for 8 years before joining the Department of Botany & Plant Pathology at Purdue University in 1971. His agricultural research over 55 years has focused on the epidemiology and control of soilborne plant pathogens with emphasis on microbial ecology, cultural and biological controls, nutrient-disease interactions, pesticide-disease interactions, physiology of host-parasite relationships and techniques for rapid microbial identification. Dr. Huber is past Chairman of the USDA-APS National Plant Disease Recovery System; a member of the US Threat Pathogens Committee; former member of the Advisory Board for the Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress; and Office of the Surgeon General OTSG) Global Epidemiology Working Group. He is author or co-author of over 300 journal articles, Experiment Station Bulletins, book chapters and review articles; three books, and 84 special invited publications and an active scientific reviewer; consultant to academia, industry, and government; and international research cooperator. His work on glyphosate, raising issues of numerous health effects, enzyme function, and diminished micronutrients in plants and the food supply, put him at the cutting edge of scientific concern about the use of the world most popular herbicide.

Jim Riddle – For more than 30 years, Jim has been an organic farmer, gardener, inspector, educator, policy analyst, author and avid organic eater. He was founding chair of the Winona Farmer’s Market and the International Organic Inspectors Association, (IOIA), and co-author of the IFOAM/IOIA International Organic Inspection Manual. Jim is former chair of the USDA National Organic Standards Board and has also served on the boards of the International Organic Accreditation Service, Beyond Pesticides, and the Organic Processing Institute. He currently serves on the Citizens Board for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; and on the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Advisory Committee. He is the elected Chair of the Winona County Soil and Water Conservation District Board. In addition, he and his wife own and operate Blue Fruit Farm, a diversified fruit farm in southeastern Minnesota.

Stay Tuned”¦
Check back as we add information about speakers and sessions at the upcoming conference.

If your group is interested in co-sponsoring the 35th National Pesticide Forum, please email us.

If you would like more information about the conference, please email info@beyondpesticides, or call 202-543-5450.

Videos from Last Year’s Conference
See Beyond Pesticides’ Youtube page for videos of all the speakers, panels, and workshop discussions from the 34th National Pesticide Forum! Check out BeyondPesticides’ past conferences here.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 8, 2016) On Monday, the Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA) released its Managed Pollinator Protection Plan, which allows for the continuation of widespread pesticide use in landscapes across the state. The plan includes voluntary strategies for farmers, beekeepers, landowners and pesticide applicators, but fails to include any recommendations for reducing or eliminating toxic pesticide use. DDA resorts to recommending approaches that include “best management practices,” strategies to increase pollinator forage on public and private lands, and advocating for the use of Driftwatch, an online initiative that focuses on pesticide drift. Driftwatch is a voluntary effort run by the non-profit, Fieldwatch, which, according to its website, was created by Purdue University Agricultural and Biological Engineering and Agricultural Communications departments and  Purdue University Cooperative Extension Specialists  “to help pesticide applicators and specialty crop growers communicate more effectively to promote awareness and stewardship activities to help prevent and manage drift effects.”

Like other state pollinator protection plans,  there is little mention of pesticides, despite the fact that neonicotinoids (neonics) are highly toxic, persistent and systemic pesticides that have been widely implicated as a leading factor in pollinator decline. According to environmentalists and beekeepers, little meaningful action has been taken to address pesticide impacts on pollinators, and industry groups have been working  to weaken and derail pesticide reforms  at state and local levels that may protect pollinators.

Delaware’s plan follows the White House release in 2015 of the National Strategy to Promote Pollinator Health, which includes the Pollinator Research Action Plan and the Pollinator-Friendly Best Management Practices for Federal Lands. The Strategy outlines several components, such as a focus on increased pollinator habitat, public education and outreach, and further research into a range of environmental stressors, including systemic neonicotinoid pesticides. The Strategy ultimately contradicts itself by encouraging habitat, but continuing to allow pesticides that contaminate landscapes. This failure to address to one of the underlying causes of pollinator decline, systemic pesticide use, is all too common at the federal and state level.

A major component of Delaware’s plan is the creation and maintenance of habitat and forage for pollinators. It states that, “It is important to consider diversity when choosing plants to ensure adequate forage for the entire growing season.” It continues, “Diversity will also ensure pollinators have access to all of the nutrients they require to be healthy.”

Insecticide and fungicide-coated seeds are among the most popular method in chemical-intensive agriculture and landscaping of controlling target insects or fungal diseases, accounting for the vast majority of seeds for major crops and ornamental plants in the U.S. However, coated seeds result in the poisoning of nectar, pollen, and guttation droplets and indiscriminate poisoning of pollinating and foraging organisms. The sourcing of seeds uncoated with toxic pesticides and the plants needed for pollinator nutrition is absent from DDA’s plan, a problem that is shared by the other state plans.

Without restrictions on the use of neonics, pollinator habitat and forage areas are at risk for pesticide contamination and provide no real safe-haven for bees and other pollinators.

Beyond Pesticides encourages state and federal agencies to adopt organic management practices that are inherently protective of pollinators. Additionally, Beyond Pesticides and its allies have called for suspensions on neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly the most widely used and toxic: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. These pesticides are used most commonly in corn and soybean seed treatment, where they remain in plant tissues, including pollen and nectar, for long periods of time.

The Delaware Pollinator Plan promotes the importance of pollinators and the impact their dwindling numbers will have on U.S. agriculture. Delaware growers produce many crops which require insect pollination, including watermelons, cucumbers, strawberries, cantaloupes, apples, blueberries, cranberries, squash, and pumpkins. According to the Pollinator Protection Plan, the production of watermelons and cucumbers “requires between 2500-3000 bee colonies to be brought into the state to maximize pollination of these crops. In addition to the colonies brought in for production, Delaware has approximately 173 registered beekeepers who manage 1500 resident hives.”

However, unless systematic pesticide contamination is addressed in state and federal pollinator plans, bees, both wild and managed, and other pollinator species will continue to be adversely affected. As noted in the text of the Delaware Managed Pollinator Protection Plan, the plan is a working document and DDA plans to “periodically update this document to reflect current working conditions and regulatory requirements.”

In the absence of federal action, some states are limiting the use of toxic, systemic neonic pesticides. In August 2016, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton issued an Executive Order aimed at reversing pollinator decline in the state by limiting the use of toxic, systemic neonicotinoid (neonics) pesticides. Minnesota’s state-level actions are in large part due to a groundswell of local advocacy that has succeeded in protecting pollinators. Sixteen localities in Minnesota, including its  largest city Minneapolis  and its  capital St. Paul, have passed resolutions restricting the use of neonics by its local government.  It is crucial that Delaware and other states follow the lead of Minnesota and move to properly protect pollinators.

In light of the shortcomings of state and federal agencies  to protect these vital organisms, it is left up to advocates to ensure that we provide safe havens for pollinators by creating pesticide-free habitat and educating others to do the same. You can declare your garden, yard, park or other space as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat.  Sign the pledge today! Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The  Bee Protective Habitat Guide  can tell you which native plants are right for your region. For more information on what you can do, visit our  BEE Protective  page.

Sources: Newsworks, Delaware.gov

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 7, 2016)  Two national non-profit advocacy groups, Beyond Pesticides and Organic Consumers Association (OCA), today launched the Map of Local Pesticide Reform Policies, a resource for communities and activists that documents pesticide policies adopted by local communities to protect people, pollinators and the environment. The map spotlights over 115 communities in 21 states that have taken local action to protect their communities from the adverse effects of pesticides by substituting a range of alternative tactics, from eliminating highly toxic chemicals to the adoption of organic practices. Beyond Pesticides are inviting people across the country to sign a national petition in support of the transition to organic land management.

“The Map of Local Pesticide Reform Policies, a continuously updated resource, reflects the wave of change occurring nationwide as local and state policymakers take steps to provide protections to people and the environment that are not provided by federal policy,” said Drew Toher, public education associate for Beyond Pesticides. “The policies adopted so far reveal a strong desire by local governments to advance practices that promote nontoxic alternatives to the toxic weed- and pest-management practices increasingly seen as destructive to the health of humans and their environment.”

“Meaningful change often starts at the local level, when concerned citizens, consumers and grassroots organizations join with elected officials and policymakers to protect health and the environment,” said Patrick Kerrigan, OCA’s retail coordinator. “This new tool will allow consumers, activists and policymakers to replicate or adapt policies that have already been successfully implemented in other communities. This will move policymaking forward faster and more efficiently, across the entire country.”

The Map of Local Pesticide Reform Policies provides the public and local leaders with the names and locations of localities that have passed policies, the type of policy passed, a short description of the scope of the policy, and a link to view the entire text. The policy types covered in this map do not include those relating to the use of pesticides for mosquito control, in schools or in agriculture. This type of policy will be addressed in future updates to the project.

The current edition of the map includes 18 communities with pesticide-free parks programs, 29 with restrictions to protect pollinators, 66 communities with policies that restrict pesticide use on all publicly owned property, and 24 that extend restrictions to private land. (Only seven states do not preempt (prohibit) local jurisdictions from restricting pesticide use on private land).

Beyond Pesticides encourages people to review the accuracy of the information on the map, and email to [email protected] with policies that have not been captured on the map. Citizens interested in initiating a pesticide policy in their own community can sign up here for more information.

Of the 30 most commonly used pesticides, 16 are possible and/or known carcinogens,   17 have the potential to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system, 21 are linked to reproductive effects and sexual dysfunction, 12 have been linked to birth defects, 14 are neurotoxic, 25 can cause kidney or liver damage, and 26 are sensitizers and/or irritants. Children are especially sensitive to pesticide exposure, as they take in more pesticides relative to their body weight than adults and have developing organ systems that are more vulnerable and less able to detoxify toxic chemicals. Pollinator populations are experiencing catastrophic declines linked to the use of a class of systemic pesticides called neonicotinoids, which are taken up by plants and expressed in their pollen, nectar and dew droplets.

If you want to get active in your community to stop unnecessary toxic pesticide use, sign this petition and we’ll send you a blueprint for local change!

About Beyond Pesticides  
Beyond Pesticides is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., which works with allies in protecting public health and the environment to lead the transition to a world free of toxic pesticides through a program of science, policy and action. For more information, please visit  www.beyondpesticides.org.

About the Organic Consumers Association
The Organic Consumers Association is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public-interest organization advocating on behalf of more than two million consumers for health, justice, and sustainability. For more information, please visit  www.organicconsumers.org.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 6, 2016) A new study released by researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle finds that exposure to organophosphate insecticides is associated with changes in oral bacterial diversity, particularly for exposed farmworkers. The study provides insight into the far-reaching changes pesticide exposure can cause to the human body, which are not captured by current risk assessment models used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although past research has investigated the impact of pesticide exposure on the gut microbiome, this is one of the first studies to look at oral bacterial diversity.

For the study, scientists took oral swabs from 65 adult farmworkers and 52 non-farmworker adults in the Yakima Valley of Washington State. Swabs were taken both during the spring/summer, when exposure to pesticides is high, as well as winter, when lower exposure is expected. At the same time the swabs were taken, researchers also took blood samples of individuals in the study. Scientists focused on exposure to the organophosphate insecticide Azinphos-methyl (AZM), which at the time of the study (2005-2006) had not begun its cancellation proceedings.

Results show that farmworkers have greater concentrations of AZM in their blood than non-farmworking adults in the area. It follows that farmworkers also show greater changes to their oral bacterial diversity. Of the farmworkers that have detectable levels of AZM in their blood stream, scientists found “significantly reduced abundances of seven common taxa of oral bacteria, including Streptococcus, one of the most common normal microbiota in the mouth,” said Ian B. Stanaway, PhD candidate in Environmental Toxicology at the University of Washington in a press release. Researchers found that while reductions in bacterial diversity start in the heavy pesticide use season of spring/summer, they remain low into the winter. “Persistence from the spring/summer to the winter of this association also suggests long lasting effects on the commensal microbiota have occurred,” the study finds.

Now that researchers have discovered this association, as principal investigator Elaine Faustman, PhD, notes, “[t]he challenge becomes, what does this mean. We don’t know — we depend on the microbiome for so many metabolic processes. PhD candidate Stanaway notes, “in other studies, different species and strains of Streptococcus have been associated with changes in oral health.”

The impact of pesticides on the human microbiome is an area of growing research. In Beyond Pesticides’ recent issue of Pesticides and You, the book 10% Human was reviewed, highlighting the fact that only 10% of human cells are genetically human, and 90% microbial in origin. Reviewer Terry Shistar, PhD, writes, “Disturbing the microbiota can contribute to a   whole host of  ”˜21st century diseases,’ including  diabetes, obesity, food allergies, heart     disease, antibiotic-resistant infections, cancer, asthma, autism, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and more.”

Previous research on rats has found the widely used organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos caused significant disruptions in the microbiome. When exposed to chronic, low doses of the chemical, certain microbial populations flourish, while others decreas. A scientific review of glyphosate by a team of fourteen renown scientists finds that the action of glyphosate as an antibiotic could alter gut diversity, “which could favor the proliferation of pathogenic microbes in humans, farm animals, pets and other exposed vertebrates,” the authors state.

While AZM use stopped in 2013, there is still significant concern over the ability of a range of pesticides to alter the human microbiome. In addition to glyphosate, researchers have recently found that several other common herbicides have been linked to antibiotic resistance. It is critical that  more research is conducted to understand the link between environmental exposure to pesticides and other toxicants, changes in the human microbiome, and the onset of disease.

Farmworkers, as usual, are on the front line of these impacts. Despite a recent important update to Worker Protection Standards, as this study shows, there is a need to drastically limit farmwoker exposure not only to organophosphates, but a wide range of toxic pesticides. Advocates are urging EPA to incorporate changes to the human microbiome into pesticide risk assessments to ensure worker safety. And when a pesticide is shown to alter levels of pathogenic, neutral, and beneficial bacteria, they maintain it should be removed from the market in favor of sustainable and organic practices that can replace these toxic chemicals.

For more information on the impact of pesticides to farmworkers and their families, see Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage. And for more information on why organic practices is the right solution to address microbiome-shifting pesticides and antibiotic resistance, see Beyond Pesticides organic agriculture program page.

Source: American Society for Microbiology (press release)

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 5, 2016) People across the country can support farmworker children and rural communities by speaking up in support of better protection of California school children from pesticide exposure by December 9, 2016. Send a  short email to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) ([email protected]) to tell the Department it  must expand proposed buffers around schools to one-mile to protect school children during and after school hours, and expand the rule to cover all schools and daycare centers. Given that, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s latest statistics, “Over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts [and a large share of dairy and livestock] are grown in California,” everyone who eats food in the U.S. has a stake in protecting children who live in the communities where the food is grown. Food purchasing decisions have a direct impact on the people who work on farms, their children, and the communities where they live.

Support the more than 75 parents, teachers and advocates for social and environmental justice who marched in Tulare County to DPR’s draft rules for pesticides use near schools last week. Led by members of the Tulare County Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety (TCCAPS), the protesters say that the regulations fall short in protecting school children and staff from pesticides that drift from nearby agricultural spraying. DPR’s public hearing on its draft regulation followed shortly after the march. About 60 people voiced their concerns at the meeting that lasted  three-and-a-half hours.

DPR’s proposed  rules will establish the first ever statewide buffer zone around public schools and daycare centers in California, prohibiting pesticide applications within a ¼ mile of schools and childcare centers.   Those that protested the new regulation say that it doesn’t go far enough to protect public health.   The regulation would only apply between the hours of 6am-6pm Monday through Friday. Parents and teachers want to extend the buffer zone to one  mile. It has been studied that pesticide drift can travel even greater than a mile away from its original application site. In fact, pesticide particles can attach themselves to air masses and be deposited across the globe.  Agricultural pesticide exposure is linked to serious childhood health concerns, including asthma, autism, cancer and developmental and neurological damages.

According to a study conducted by state and federal health departments, a one-mile buffer would prevent 85% of acute exposure illnesses.  The study cites that 24% of non-work drift illnesses occurred at distances of ¼ mile or less. A University of California, Davis MIND Institute study documents significantly increased rates of autism in children of mothers who live up to one mile from pesticide-treated fields.  The UC Berkeley CHAMACOS study of farmworker families in Salinas, CA finds contamination from the neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos in homes even beyond a mile from treated fields. In addition, the California Childhood Leukemia Study reports elevated concentrations of several pesticides in the dust of homes up to ¾ mile from treated fields.

“These regulations are long overdue but they don’t go far enough,” said Fidelia Morales, a TCCAPS member and caretaker for five school-aged children. “It’s DPR’s responsibility to protect all Californians regardless of race or place, and it’s disappointing that they have proposed rules that don’t protect the community and our schools. As always, it’s low-income people of color who are vulnerable.”

In 2014, the California Department of Health released a report,  Agricultural Pesticide Use Near Public Schools,  that for the first time documented the use of the most hazardous agricultural pesticides near public schools in 15 of California’s agricultural counties. The report shed light on the use of more than a half a million pounds of 144 different chemicals that could be a cause for health concerns used within a quarter mile of public schools.  Tulare County had the highest percentage of schools with pesticides of public health concern applied within ¼ mile —63%, or 123 of Tulare County’s 194 public schools. Racial disparities were also identified. According to the report, ” In the 15 counties assessed, Hispanic children were 46% more likely than White children to attend schools with any use of pesticides within ¼ mile, compared to children attending schools with no pesticide use within ¼ mile.” Even more striking, the report finds that, “This difference was more pronounced with increased pesticide use, as Hispanic children were 91% more likely than White children to attend a school in the top quartile of pesticide usage, when compared to children attending schools with no pesticide use nearby.”

Under the proposed rules, pesticide applications could be applied in the early hours of the morning, an already common practice. Opponents of DPR’s new rules argue that stronger restrictions, without loopholes and allowances that allow toxic pesticide use to continue, are necessary to protect children and staff that use school grounds after hours or on weekends.

“Pesticides hang around long after they are applied and the damage from this can be long-term, as well,” said Caty Wagner, a TC CAPS member and founder of Sequoia Mavericks. “Brain-harming organophosphates are applied in enormous quantities near Tulare County schools””amounts linked to IQ loss in children for prenatal exposure,” Ms. Wagner added, referring to a recent UC Berkeley CHAMACOS study in the Salinas Valley.

“Part-time, quarter mile buffer zones are not nearly enough,” said Margaret Reeves, PhD, senior scientist with Pesticide Action Network North America. “Policymakers need to provide support and training for farmers to transition to safer farming methods that don’t harm kids. We urge state officials, particularly DPR, the Department of Food and Agriculture and the Governor to make the necessary investments in the future of California agriculture.”

Beyond Pesticides does not believe that the quarter-mile buffer zone is rigorous enough to protect public health from pesticide drift. Other deficiencies  in the proposed  regulation include  the rule’s limited scope in only addressing  public schools, leaving out private K-12 schools and private day care facilities. You can submit a comment at [email protected]  by December 9, 2016. You can see  more background from DPF  for the proposed regulations. The comment period has been extended to December 9, 2016 from its original November date.

For an in-depth look at  the dangers of pesticide drift, see  fact sheet on pesticide drift. Also, as a food consumer, the best way to protect farmworkers, their children, and rural communities from pesticide use and exposure is to buy  organic food in the grocery store. Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience  identifies the range of pesticides used in chemical-intensive food production that is eliminated from use in organic production. To learn more about the campaign for social justice food labeling and the Agricultural Justice Project (AJP), see Social Justice Food Labeling: From food to table. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage.

farmSource: Civil Eats & Valley Voice

(Beyond Pesticides, December 2, 2016) Last week, the Arkansas Plant Board voted 12-0 to push measures that would ban or limit the use of certain forms of the toxic herbicide dicamba in the state. The hearing was called to address proposals that the board released for public comment on September 30, such as banning certain formulations of dicamba outright, creating restrictions on the time of year that other formulations of the herbicide can be used, and creating buffer zones in certain situations. This decision comes on the heels of a newly registered formulation of dicamba by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and widespread reports of crop damage across the Midwest and Southeast due to the illegal use of dicamba before it was registered.

According to DTN Progressive Farmer, the three-hour public meeting was packed with almost 200 people, and approximately 20 of those testified. The testimonies highlighted the disputes and tensions that have arisen over the use of dicamba, as many remembered and spoke about Mike Wallace, a farmer who was tragically murdered on October 27 during an argument with a fellow farmer in Missouri over the illegal use of the chemical and subsequent crop damage. “We’ve seen exactly what the old formulations are capable of, and there’s not enough research to prove the new formulations will not do the same,” stated Bradley Wallace, son of the late Mike Wallace. Another Arkansas farmer testified that he could visually identify 600 acres of soybeans that had been damaged by dicamba drift, estimating a $70,000 loss of income. Others testified that farmers were beginning to plant Xtend soybeans, which are genetically engineered (GE) to withstand dicamba applications, as a defensive move, as they were worried drift from neighboring farmers would hurt their crops and income. The Plant Board received 245 written comments during the public comment period, with 192 writers expressing support for the restrictions proposed, and 33 requesting a ban of all dicamba products. Only five comments expressed opposition to the proposed restrictions. During the hearing, there was also widespread support to increase the fine associated with illegal spraying, but that would require additional legislation.

In October, EPA launched a criminal investigation at several locations in Missouri into the illegal spraying allegations, based on complaints about damage across Missouri and several nearby states. The complaints allege damage to more than 41,000 acres of soybeans, and other crops including peaches, tomatoes, watermelons, cantaloupe, rice, purple-hull peas, peanuts, cotton and alfalfa, as well as to residential gardens, trees and shrubs.

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

The use of other highly volatile herbicides like 2,4-D on GE crops also presents growing pesticide drift concerns in light of   2,4-D tolerant GE varieties. Formulations of 2,4-D have been marketed as a “solution” for the control of glyphosate-resistant weeds brought on by the widespread use of the chemical on glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops over the last decade. These super weeds now infest tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland. 2,4-D is linked to non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL), and is also neurotoxic, genotoxic, and an endocrine disruptor. Both of these herbicides, when associated with GE crops, are formulated with glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified as probably carcinogenic to humans based upon laboratory animal studies.

While the Arkansas Plant Board’s decision is a step in the right direction, there is still more work to be done. The proposals now go to the Arkansas governor for considerations, and will eventually be brought before a legislative committee for a final decision, said Terry Walker, director of the Arkansas State Plant Board, in a statement to DTN Progressive Farmer. Ultimately, this problem will need to be addressed on a structural scale, as chemical-intensive farmers will need to diversify the crops they plant and implement other cultural practices to deter weeds, such as cover crops, crop rotation, and intercropping. Food distribution systems will also need to shift to accommodate greater diversity in farmer fields. Organic agriculture represents a time-tested approach to managing weeds and avoiding resistance problems that plague GE cropping systems. With organic, the use of toxic synthetic herbicides and GE seeds is prohibited, and farmers must craft an organic system plan aimed at improving soil health and managing pests and weeds should they arise.

Source: DTN Progressive Farmer

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

(Beyond Pesticides, December 1, 2016)  A groundbreaking decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) last Wednesday ruled in favor of the environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) and Greenpeace Nederland, which had been denied access to industry studies and other information submitted by chemical companies to European regulators on the controversial weedkiller glyphosate  and the bee-toxic insecticide imidacloprid. In the two judgments  regarding public access to underlying environmental effects information on chemicals, ECJ clarified the meaning of “emissions into the environment” and “information on [or which relates to] emissions into the environment” within the EU regulation.

The Court found that “emissions into the environment” includes releases from pesticide products or active ingredients contained in these products, as long as the release is possible under realistic conditions of use of this product. It interpreted the “information on emissions into the environment” to cover information relating to the nature, composition, and quantity of those emissions, but also “information enabling the public to check whether the assessment [is correct], as well as the data relating to the medium or long-term effects of those emissions.” This decision will allow for any interested party to obtain industry studies and underlying data that were submitted to European regulatory agencies for pesticide review and approval.

This ruling resulted from two similar cases, one in the European Commission and the other a court in the Netherlands, that  refused to give environmental NGOs access to industry studies and other documents. According to Politico, one case dealt with access to a documents request from PAN Europe and Greenpeace for “internal studies linked to the safety of the controversial weedkiller glyphosate.” Glyphosate, produced by Monsanto, is one of the most popular weedkillers in the U.S., and the active ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet has been shown to have detrimental impacts  on humans and the environment. Given its widespread use on residential and agricultural sites, its toxicity is of increasing concern.

The other case was a request by the Dutch bee organization, Stichting de Bijenstichting, for information on the authorization process of the neonicotinoid  imidacloprid. The use of imidacloprid has gained popularity in agricultural and residential settings, but its human and environmental effects still have not been fully evaluated, despite its registration over 20 years ago. While many in the industry consider imidacloprid to be a pesticide of relatively low toxicity, it has been found to be extremely toxic to non-target insects like bees, and has led to resistance in the Colorado potato beetle. Advocates are urging U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete its full assessment of imidacloprid and follow Canada’s lead in eliminating this toxic chemical.

There are some concerns regarding the specific types of documents ECJ deemed suitable for release to the public, since the court stated that “the concept of information on emissions into the environment does not include information relating to purely hypothetical emissions.” This may ultimately mean that authorities can still deny access to certain documents that do not specifically include data on exposure to humans.

This is a huge win for environmental organizations that have long been critical of the lack of transparency in the government review process of pesticides. And while it does not apply to regulatory decisions in the U.S., it sets a legal precedent going forward. The pesticide industry is concerned about this ruling and claim that reduced confidentiality may affect investment in the market. According to the European Chemical Industry Council, the rulings “set a potentially dangerous precedent for the protection of confidential business information submitted by companies for EU substance and product registrations and approvals.”

At the domestic level, Beyond Pesticides fights for the future of the planet, by supporting and advocating for organic land management, holding federal agencies accountable to their statutory responsibility, and engaging with local communities to pass progressive pesticide initiatives that are protective of environmental and public health. For more information on what you can do, visit our  Action Alerts sign-up  page, read about  Tools for Change  to use in your local community, and consider  becoming a member today.

Sources: Politico, Energydesk

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 30, 2016) A landmark Montgomery County, Maryland ordinance, which protects children, pets, wildlife, and the wider environment from the hazards of unnecessary lawn and landscape pesticide use, is facing a legal challenge filed last week by the industry group Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE). The plaintiffs, which include local chemical lawn care companies and a few individuals, allege that the local ordinance is preempted by state law, despite the fact that Maryland is one of  seven states  that has not explicitly taken away (or preempted) local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the state. This challenge comes on the heels of a recent decision by the 9^th  U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down local laws in Hawaii aimed at protecting the environment from toxic pesticide use. An industry victory in Maryland state court would significantly impact the ability of local communities in Maryland to exercise their democratic right to adopt local public health and environmental protections that go above and beyond state and federal regulations that are deemed inadequate.

The bill at issue, 52-14, which bans the cosmetic lawn care use of toxic pesticides on public and private land, protects over one million people, the largest number to be covered by any local jurisdiction to date. Passing the Montgomery County Council by a vote of 6-3, the bill allows time for transition, training, and a public education program over several years. In limiting the pesticides allowed to be used for turf management, the law define acceptable materials to those permitted for use in organic production, or identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “minimum risk pesticides” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 25(b). These restrictions effectively eliminate public exposure to hazardous pesticides on lawns and playing fields and in parks in the county, while still making available for use a wide range of pest-control products, creating a historic public health measure that serves as an example to localities across the country. The efforts of Montgomery County have been mirrored in several subsequent communities, including South Portland, ME.

The historic measure is being challenged by industry operatives who want to perpetuate the use of toxic pesticides within Montgomery County. The opponents argue that the ordinance is prohibited (preempted) under state  law, even though preemption is not explicit. Legal history provides context on this issue, however, and it is clear that presiding law in the state of Maryland likely does not preempt local jurisdictions from passing laws stricter than those implemented by the state. The prevailing federal precedent was decided in 1991 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in  Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier,  ruled that federal pesticide law (FIFRA) does not preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government. According to Mortier, however states do retain authority to take away local control. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative  language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on  the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording.

Although attempts at this form of “explicit” preemption were introduced in Maryland in the mid-1990s, industry was unsuccessful in gaining enough support, and the state legislature never passed legislation expressly preempting local pesticide legislation. Because of this, RISE and its affiliates argue that there is “implied” preemption on the part of the state that would prohibit a local jurisdiction like Montgomery County from taking action to protect its citizens. Their claim hinges on proving that Maryland law establishes a “comprehensive program of state level regulation and licensing of pesticide products and applicators” that implies that state meant to occupy the entire space of pesticide regulation, and left no door open for local jurisdictions to regulate above and beyond state statutes. The lawsuit focuses on Bill 52-14’s prohibition of pesticide use on private property, and does not challenged the ordinance provisions that apply to county-owned land.

During the original debate on the bill, Montgomery County City Council legislative attorney Josh Hamlin wrote a memo on the issue of preemption. In it he asserts that while a court could conclude that Montgomery County is preempted, that conclusion is far from certain, and that both Maryland case law and legislative history make a strong argument against implied preemption. He points out, “Indeed, given the existing Maryland case law, as well as the legislative history of the State pesticide law, staff believes that a very strong argument against implied preemption can be made.” The memo continues, “In Maryland, pesticides are regulated by the Maryland Department of Agriculture. . .Maryland law and regulations generally create a pesticide registration and labeling regime at the state level, and a licensing program for applicators of certain pesticides. Title 5 [of the Agriculture Article of the Maryland Code] does not include any express preemption language, nor does it expressly authorize the use of any particular pesticides. In 2011, the Office of the County Attorney opined that, as a general matter, the County may regulate a pesticide in a manner at least as restrictive as, and consistent with, federal and State law. Specifically, the opinion expressed the view that the County could enact a local ban on the use of the pesticide methyl bromide.” The issue of local authority regarding pesticide use is not a new issue for Montgomery County. The memo points out, “The County currently imposes certain notice, storage, handling, and consumer information requirements in Chapter 33B of the County Code, and Bill 52-14 would add certain additional notice requirements, and would prohibit the use of certain pesticides on County property and certain private property.”

According to the memo, case law in Maryland has long recognized a “concurrent powers theory, which allows local legislation in certain fields where the State legislature has acted as long as the local jurisdiction is otherwise empowered to legislate on the subject.” Under this rule, there have only been six distinct instances since 1969 where the Maryland court has found implied preemption and invalided a local law, none of which dealt with issues of pesticide regulation. While plaintiffs may look to other states, specifically the recent decision regarding local pesticide restrictions in Hawaii, to strengthen their argument in favor of implied preemption, those cases must be viewed in the context of the specific state legislation, legislative history, and case law. For more information on preemption, see Beyond Pesticides article,  State Preemption Law: The Battle for Local Control of Democracy.

While the outcome of this lawsuit is currently uncertain, the challenge by industry groups highlights the importance of local action when it comes to tightening controls on cosmetic pesticide use. There is movement across the country right now to adopt ordinances that stop pesticide use on public property and, where allowed, private property, as people recognize more and more the dangers associated with toxic pesticide use on their homes and lawns. When used, pesticides move off the target site through drift and runoff, exposing non-target plants, wildlife, and people. Local control of pesticide regulations is crucial to the movement of pesticide reform, something Beyond Pesticides consistently supports through its work in local communities. Contact Beyond Pesticides to help support Montgomery County and similar communities across the country who are fighting to eliminate toxic pesticide use once and for all. For more information on organic lawn care, see  Beyond Pesticides  lawns and landscape program page.

More details about Bill 52-14 and related amendments are available to  read here.

Source: Complete Lawn Care, Inc. v. Montgomery County

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 29, 2016) Last week, Health Canada announced its intent to cancel nearly all uses of the neonicotinoid insecticide imidacloprid after determining that the chemical poses unacceptable risks to the environment. Although imidacloprid and other pesticides in the neonicotinoid chemical class are  notorious for their harmful impact to pollinators, Health Canada’s decision to eliminate most uses of the chemical is based primarily on the danger it poses to aquatic insects. Environmental groups throughout the world are praising the proposal, but cautioning against the long, three to five year phase out period proposed by the agency. There is concern that the phase out  will permit continued environmental damage, and provide time for other toxic insecticides with similar systemic properties to replace imidacloprid. Advocates are urging U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete its full assessment of imidacloprid and follow Canada’s lead in eliminating this toxic chemical.

Imidacloprid  breaks down slowly in the environment and has a strong propensity to move through soil and into ground and surface water. Health Canada indicates that water quality monitoring data frequently detects the chemical in waterways at levels that poses unacceptable risks to aquatic insects. The agency was unable to attribute the source of imidacloprid in aquatic environments to a specific agricultural use site, indicating that, despite current label mitigation measures, elevated levels are likely to be found in many agricultural areas where imidacloprid is often used. Health Canada further indicated that its monitoring data  are  likely underestimating actual exposure. Based on this information, the agency concluded “that the continued use of imidacloprid in agricultural areas is not sustainable.” No mitigation measures the agency could enact would be suitable to reduce risk, resulting in Health Canada’s proposal to phase out use of the chemical.

Health Canada is proposing to eliminate the following uses of imidacloprid:

• trees (except when applied as a tree trunk injection)
• greenhouse uses
• outdoor agricultural uses (including ornamentals)
• commercial seed treatment uses
• turf (such as lawns, golf courses, and sod farms)
• residential lawns

However, the agency is leaving in place certain uses for the chemical, including applications in and around homes and buildings, use as a tree trunk injection, and flea, tick, and lice collars for cats and dogs. It is also important to note that this current proposal is only specific to imidacloprid, and does not address the use of other neonicotinoids or systemic chemicals, notably the other two most widely used of the class,  clothianidin  and  thiomethoxam. Health Canada is addressing those chemicals in separate “special reviews.”

Health Canada’s review also does not incorporate the impact imidacloprid poses to honey bees. Although EPA has yet to release as broad a health and environmental review as Health Canada, it did  release  an  assessment of imidacloprid’s risk to honey bees earlier this year. The agency’s work confirms that the chemical is highly toxic to honey bees, and that bees can be exposed to harmful residues of  the chemical  in crops where pollinators forage, including citrus, cotton, and other crops.

“This timeline is unnecessarily long,” said the organization  Environmental Defense  in a statement. “The federal government must accelerate the phase-out to prevent further harm to aquatic wildlife and pollinators.”

Health Canada’s action follow local and provincial moves to restrict toxic neonicotinoid use. The cities of  Montreal  and  Vancouver  have banned their application, and the provinces of  Quebec  and  Ontario  have instituted restrictions on their use in agriculture. In the U.S., although there has been significant  local action, honey bees are still in dire straits, with  elevated losses still continuing over a decade into this crisis. This past year (2015-2016), beekeepers lost 28.1% of their colonies over the winter, and a total of 44% of their colonies throughout the year. While EPA indicates that its broader review of imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids will be completed soon, it could take until 2018 to finalize any action.

For more on what you can do to help pollinators, visit our  Bee Protective program page. Beyond Pesticides encourages concerned individuals to become active in pesticide reform efforts in their community, in order to help build pressure to restrict these chemicals at the federal level. If you’re interested in passing common-sense laws to protect pollinators, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or at  [email protected].

Source:  Health Canada

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

(Beyond Pesticides,  November 28, 2016) Last week, a  federal judge effectively  rubber stamped  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies that allow seeds to be coated with bee-toxic pesticides known as neonicotinoids. These pesticides, persistent in water and soil, are associated with acute bee kills, widespread pollinator declines and environmental damage. The Judge’s Order was issued on Nov. 21 in the case of  Anderson et al. v. McCarthy, No. 3:16-cv-00068-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

“It is astounding that a judge, EPA or anyone with any common sense would not regulate this type of toxic pesticide use, especially when the seed-coatings are so broadly applied and there is so much at risk. Study after study has shown that seeds coated with these chemicals are a major culprit in catastrophic bee-kills. Now more than ever our country’s beekeepers, environment and food system deserve protection from agrichemical interests, and it is EPA’s job to deliver it,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Director of Center for Food Safety.

The neonicotinoids share a common mode of action that affects the central nervous system of insects, resulting in  paralysis and death. They include  imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. Neonicotinoid pesticides have  consistently been implicated  as a key contributor  in pollinator declines, not only through immediate bee deaths, but also through sublethal exposure that causes  changes in bee reproduction, navigation, and foraging. In addition to toxicity to bees, neonicotinoids have been shown to also adversely affect  birds,  aquatic organisms and contaminate soil  and  waterways, and  overall biodiversity. EPA has  identified uncertainties  about this class of chemicals since their initial registration. However,  it  has continued to allow their use, despite incomplete information and a large body of independent scientific studies linking the chemicals to adverse environmental effect. With the court decision, it is likely that current policies will remain in effect.

The judge based his dismissed on administrative procedure, not on the fundamental question of whether the allowed seeds are harming honey bees. In fact, the judge stated in his conclusion, “The Court is most sympathetic to the plight of our bee population and beekeepers. Perhaps the EPA should have done more to protect them, but such policy decisions are for the agency to make.”

“The broader implications of this decision drive the nails in the bee industry’s coffin. Of course as a beekeeper I am concerned about my livelihood, but the public at large should also be alarmed. More than one-third of the average person’s diet is generated by pollinators that I help manage,” said Jeff Anderson, a California and Minnesota-based commercial beekeeper and honey producer, who was the lead plaintiff in the case.

Filed in response to the well documented impact the exemption for coated seeds and the dust they create has on the nation’s beekeepers, the suit’s aim was to address the lack of recourse beekeeper have when their hives are harmed. For example, one plaintiff in the case, Bret Adee, co-owner of the nation’s largest commercial beekeeping operation, suffered approximately $800,000 in damages in just one bee-kill incident caused by toxic neonicotinoid-laced dust during the planting of corn fields near his hives. Because of EPA’s regulation exemption, Mr. Adee was unable to obtain an enforcement action to protect his bees, effectively leaving him to fend for himself when it came to protecting his livelihood.

The plaintiffs in the case were beekeepers Jeff Anderson, Bret Adee, and David Hackenberg; farmers Lucas Criswell and Gail Fuller; and the Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Bird Conservancy, Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), and the Center for Food Safety.

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

Source:  Center for Food Safety Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 23, 2016)  With Thanksgiving just a day away, there is no better time to think about how we can more effectively join together as families and communities across divisions and different points of view to find a common purpose in protecting human health and the environment. Thanksgiving meals are commonly made with conventional agricultural products, which include a plethora of pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) ingredients that can affect  the health of consumers and agricultural workers alike. Read below to find out how you can combat the shortcomings of conventional agriculture with an organic Thanksgiving Day feast.

Now, more than ever, it’s important to support organic and continue to demand agricultural practices that are protective of human and environmental health.

According to GMO Inside, some common foods with GE ingredients purchased during Thanksgiving include: Campbell’s Tomato Soup, Wesson Canola Oil, Bruce’s Canned Yams, Hershey Milk Chocolate, Pepperidge Farm Crackers, Kraft Classic Ranch Dressing, Rice-a-Roni chicken flavored rice, Ocean Spray Cranberry Sauce, and Kraft’s Stove Top Stuffing.

Glyphosate, produced and sold as Roundup by Monsanto, is the most commonly used chemical in the U.S., primarily as a weedkiller in chemical-intensive agriculture. Glyphosate has been  found to cause changes to DNA functioning, resulting in chronic disease, and has been  classified as a probable carcinogen  by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Following the suspension of residue testing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a report was released by Food Democracy Now! and the Detox Project,  titled  Glyphosate: Unsafe on Any Plate, which found high levels of glyphosate contamination in popular food brands, such as Cheerios, Oreos, Goldfish and Ritz Crackers, and Stacy’s Pita Chips.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to allow widespread use of GE crops that are dependent on toxic chemicals. This approval process has placed us on a pesticide treadmill, with recent decisions to reapprove and expand the use of the toxic herbicide mixture, Enlist Duo, and register a new formulation of dicamba to control weeds in GE cotton and soybean crops. Enlist Duo is an herbicide that incorporates a mix of  glyphosate  and a new  formulation of  2,4-D, intended for use on GE Enlist-Duo-tolerant corn and soybean crops. In addition to environmental damage, these chemicals have been linked to a myriad of human health problems. 2,4-D has been linked to  soft tissue sarcoma,  non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma  (NHL), neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and harm to the reproductive system. Dicamba  has been linked to damage of the kidney and liver, neurotoxicity, and developmental impacts. This chemical has a strong propensity to volatilize small particles of the herbicide into the air and drift far off-site.

How can you combat the shortcomings of conventional agriculture? Choose organic.

Our food choices have a direct effect on the health of our environment and those who grow and harvest what we eat. That’s why certified organic food is the right choice. USDA organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight, ensuring that  the  toxic, synthetic pesticides used in chemical-intensive  agriculture are replaced by management practices focused on soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health. This eliminates commonly used toxic chemicals in the production and processing of food that is not labeled organic—pesticides that contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm  farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish and other wildlife.

To help better explain the urgent need for a major shift to organic food consumption, Beyond Pesticides developed its  Eating with a Conscience  database, which evaluates the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals allowed for use on major food crops. For example, while sweet potatoes grown with toxic chemicals show low pesticide residues on the finished commodity, there are 48 pesticides with established tolerance for sweet potatoes, 22 are acutely toxic creating a hazardous environment for farmworkers, 44 are linked to chronic health problems, 13 contaminate streams or groundwater, and 46 are poisonous to wildlife.

Fortunately, the majority of common Thanksgiving products can easily be substituted with organic counterparts. The common centerpiece of the Thanksgiving meal, turkey, is typically raised in conventional factory farmed conditions that rely upon synthetic inputs and are fed grains treated with pesticides, medicated with antibiotics, and plumped up with steroids and hormones. Additionally, turkeys are often fed an inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen, which is used to promote growth and to add pigmentation. In order to avoid these toxic inputs and factory-farm practices, your best bet is to invest in an  organic free-range turkey.

Canned yams often contain GE ingredients and are dependent upon chemical-intensive growing practices, but can be replaced by fresh organic yams. Another staple, like Pepperidge Farm Crackers, can be substituted with  organic crackers like Mary’s Gone Crackers or Nature’s Pathway Crackers. Consider substituting traditional canned cranberry sauce with  home-made jellies made with organic cranberries  and fair trade sugar. Organic jellied cranberries, such as Tree of Life or Grown Right, are fast alternatives. And finally, pre-made stuffing, like Kraft’s Stove Top stuffing, can  be replaced with homemade stuffing or organic stuffing mix from Arrowhead. Simply Organic has many  organic recipes  posted to its website if you need more ideas.

While the organic label dramatically increases protection for  consumers and agricultural workers from exposure to toxic pesticides, it also creates important benefits for environmental restoration. Research from the  Rodale Institute’s  Farming Systems Trial ® (FST) has revealed that organic, regenerative agriculture actually has the potential to lessen the impacts of climate change. This occurs through the drastic reduction in fossil fuel usage to produce the crops and the significant increase in carbon sequestration in the soil through improved soil fertility, cover cropping, and reduced tillage.

We must continue to protect the integrity and principals of the organic label.

It is important every day of the year to look to  organic to keep your family and friends safe from toxic chemicals. You can continue to fight for the well-being of organic year-round by helping to defend organic standards against USDA changes that will weaken public trust in the organic food label. Organic practices follow strict standards that do not compromise the health of people and the planet. Let’s grow the organic food label as a symbol that honors this tradition. To learn more, visit Beyond Pesticides’  Save Our Organic  webpage.

Best wishes for a healthy and happy Thanksgiving!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 22, 2016) Last week the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down local county laws aimed at protecting residents’ health and the environment in Hawaii. The ruling, handed down by federal Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, finds that Hawaii state law is comprehensive in regulating pesticides, and “impliedly preempts” local jurisdictions from passing laws with stricter standards than the state’s. The decision represents a victory for Monsanto, Syngenta, and the agrichemical industry, and a blow to the efforts of grassroots activists that say Hawaii is “ground zero” for toxic and experimental pesticide and genetically engineered (GE) crop use.

Judge Callahan’s ruling overturns a number of laws passed over the last several years on different Hawaiian Islands that all aim to protect residents, the environment, and organic farms from the toxic effects of pesticide use and drift from GE cropland. This includes Bill 2491, a measure in Kauai County that imposed common-sense buffer zones for pesticide use within 500 feet of schools and medical facilities, and within 100 feet of any park, public roadway, or shoreline that flows into the ocean. The bill withstood heavy industry lobbying, passed by a vote of 6-1 after a 19-hour council session, was vetoed by the Mayor, and overridden by the County Council. Also invalidated was Hawaii County’s Bill 113, which banned the production of GE crops in open-air conditions, carving out exceptions for crops that were already growing on the island. And, stopped in its tracks in Maui County, is a citizen initiative and lawsuit that defended a successful ballot initiative, which created buffer zones and temporarily banned GE crops from being planted on the island.

At issue in these cases is whether local jurisdictions  within the  state are prohibited (preempted) from enacting laws regulating  pesticides and GE crops that are  stricter than state  law. The legal history provide context on this issue. In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court, in  Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier,  ruled that federal pesticide law (FIFRA) does not preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government. States retain authority to take away local authority, however. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative  language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on  the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording. Although attempts at this form of “explicit” preemption were tried in Hawaii, industry was unsuccessful there, as well as in six  other states. However, under the legal theory of “implied” preemption, the chemical industry was able to successfully convince the court that, because Hawaii’s state pesticide law was “comprehensive,” it filled the role of pesticide regulation in the state and state law did not intend to allow localities the ability to further regulate pesticide use. For more information on preemption, see Beyond Pesticides article, State Preemption Law: The Battle for Local Control of Democracy.

In a singular bright spot, Judge Callahan, whose federal orders apply to nine  states on the West Coast, ruled that states and localities may place additional regulations on GE crops after federal deregulation, as they are not preempted by governing law, the Plant Protection Act. This decision leaves in place  bans on GE crop production that have passed at the county level in Oregon, California, and Washington. “It’s an important victory protecting and furthering the ability to create GE free zones,” said George Kimbrell, J.D, attorney for the Center for Food Safety to Civil Beat, which intervened to defend Hawaii localities. Despite this victory, the Judge did rule that federal law preempts states and localities from regulating field trials of experimental GE crops.

Advocates vow to continue their efforts to protect their local environment from toxic pesticide use. And legal experts are still considering their options for recourse. “The most important thing is we’re going to continue to stand and fight with the people of Hawaii against these chemical companies and push for better regulation of pesticides and of genetically engineered crops at every level,” Mr. Kimbrell said.

The fact is that localities across the country are pushing forward with pesticide reform because of mounting evidence that federal and state authorities are not doing enough to protect them. Not only are state and federal leaders failing to enact new laws and regulations that respond to the latest science, but they are neglecting to enforce weak laws already on the books. Earlier this year,  EarthJustice requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notify the Hawaii Department of Agriculture of its chronic failure to meet statutory duties for regulation and enforcement of FIFRA. While these issues remain unfixed, jeopardizing human health and the environment, this ruling denies Hawaiian communities effective measures to remedy inaction.

Local advocates hope that this ruling will increase pressure on the state to roll back preemption, or, at the least, take substantive action to protect the environment from hazardous farming practices. Signs are that some state legislators are listening. “What the decision makes clear is that it is the state’s responsibility to meaningfully protect against undue harm from pesticides, whether it’s to workers on a field or to kids in schools nearby, and we have an obligation to make sure that safety is paramount,” said Rep. Chris Lee, chairman of the Hawaii House Committee on Energy and Environmental Protection to AgWeb.

Beyond Pesticides encourages individuals to become familiar with whether you have preemption in your state, and if you do, join with us to eliminate these regressive laws. Under a new administration over the coming years, it will become more and more important to engage at the local and state level to protect health and the environment. Make sure you’ve signed up for Beyond Pesticides’ action alerts. If you’re ready to get active to fight for pesticide reform and roll back preemption in your community, contact Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or at [email protected] to get the resources you need to start your campaign.

Source: AgWeb, Civil Beat

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 21, 2016) The potential benefits of “weeds” have long been ignored, but a new study attempts to quantify the benefits of all species within an agricultural system, including the undesirable ones. The study, Integrating Insect, Resistance, and Floral Resource Management in Weed Control Decision-Making, by Cornell University scientists, assesses and updates holistic integrated pest management practices. In a discussion with the Cornell Chronicle, lead author of the study, Antonio DiTommaso, Ph.D., states, “Managing crop pests without fully understanding the impacts of tactics —related to resistance and nontarget plants or insects— costs producers money.” The authors introduced a weed management decision framework that accounts for weed benefits and illustrates that by allowing low levels of weeds in a cropping system, a farmer can increase crop yields and provide numerous ecosystem services.

In a case study of an herbicide-tolerant corn cropping system, which had been controlled primarily with glyphosate,  the authors demonstrated that the European corn borer (ECB) could be reduced  through holistic management decision making. The  data suggest that, “Milkweed plants harboring aphids provide a food source (honeydew) for parasitoid wasps, which attack ECB eggs.” By maintaining low densities of milkweed in the corn field, farmers allow beneficial pest populations to flourish, thereby improving the likelihood of controlling the non-beneficial pests. They found that having low milkweed densities in the field was especially effective at reducing yield losses when there were high pest densities of the ECB. In addition to these benefits, milkweed, a plant species that has been disappearing from the landscape due to chemical-intensive, mono-cropped agriculture, is a much-needed plant host for the monarch butterfly. This pollinator species has been declining in numbers over the past few decades due to the loss of milkweed, destruction of habitat, and sublethal effects from pesticides.

Researchers have found that a  failure to consider the full costs and benefits of weed management leads to long-term negative externalities, such as wide-scale pesticide resistance and declining non-target organisms that offer ecosystem services. According to the authors, it is vital to fully integrate all of the costs and benefits of  weed management to sustain profitability, while minimizing harmful environmental impacts.

This holistic weed management system described in the Cornell study builds upon the foundation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). While not adopting the systems approach utilized in certified organic production, well-defined IPM is a program based on prevention, monitoring, and control which offers the opportunity to eliminate or drastically reduce the use of pesticides, and to minimize the toxicity of and exposure to any products which are used. IPM does this by utilizing a variety of methods and techniques, including cultural, biological and structural strategies to control a multitude of pest problems. Those who argue that IPM requires the ability to spray any pesticides, or “judicious use of pesticides,” after identifying a pest problem are not embracing an organic systems approach to soil fertility management that nurtures biological life in the soil and only compatible inputs (substances) that do not harm the ecosystem. Chemical-intensive pest control tends to ignore the causes of pest infestations and instead rely on routine, scheduled pesticide applications, which creates a pesticide treadmill with increasing dependency and insect and weed resistance over time. Pesticides are temporary fixes and are ineffective over the long-term.

A large shift  in agricultural practices is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment over the long-term, according to a wide-ranging report authored by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES) earlier this year. According to the report, diversified agroecology focuses on maintaining multiple sources of food production, and farming by applying ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of food systems. Industrial agriculture, on the other hand, requires highly-specialized production of a single food crop, and, through scale and task separation, focuses on increasing productivity through intensification. Despite the call for a shift to agroecological farming systems, Beyond Pesticides points out that there is neither a legal nor standardized definition of agroecology or sustainable agriculture. Certified organic systems are accountable to a public rulemaking process and defined by law, the Organic Foods Production Act, which requires an “organic systems plan” that incorporates many of the prongs of agroecology, with efforts underway to add a social justice component.

Ecological pest management strategies, organic practices, and solutions that are not chemical-intensive are the most appropriate and long-term solution to managing unwanted plants and insects. Beyond Pesticides is working to  strengthen organic farming  systems by encouraging biodiversity and holistic management practices, and  upholding the spirit and values  on which the organic law was founded. Underpinning the success of organic in the U.S. are small-scale producers who focus on fostering biodiversity, limiting external inputs, improving soil health, sequestering carbon, and using integrated holistic approaches to managing pests, weeds, and disease. As a 2014 University of California Berkeley study determined that  diversified organic agriculture  can and must be the approach used to feed the world into the future. An October report in The New York Times  shows that genetically engineered crops failed to increase yields or reduce pesticide use.

Take action to end the pesticide treadmill by commenting on EPA’s proposal to expand the registration of the toxic pesticide, Enlist Duo. EPA is proposing that its registration to amended to include use on GE cotton and in 19 additional states. Write a comment to EPA telling them that you do not support this expansion for Enlist Duo, as it is not consistent with a transition to organic and holistic management systems. Public comments must be submitted by December 1, 2016 to EPA docket #EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0594.

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

Source: Cornell Chronicle

(Beyond Pesticides, November 18, 2016)  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suspended testing for glyphosate residues in food, according to a  statement made to the  Huffington Post. The suspension was announced as a  new report  was released from  Food Democracy Now!  and the Detox Project, which has exposed dangerous levels of glyphosate contamination in popular U.S. foods. Glyphosate has been  found to cause changes to DNA functioning, resulting in chronic disease, and has been  classified as a probable carcinogen  by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

In February 2016, FDA  announced  that it would start testing for glyphosate in food, following  sharp criticism  from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) for not using statistically valid methods consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards to collect information on the incidence and level of pesticide residues. Now, the agency has suspended testing amid difficulties establishing a standard methodology to use across the agency’s multiple U.S. laboratories, according to  Huffington Post. It was also reported that there have been problems with the equipment, with some labs needing more sensitive instruments.  FDA spokeswoman Megan McSeveney confirmed the testing suspension to the  Huffington Post,  and said the agency is not sure when it will resume. Ms. McSeveney stated that they had only been testing for glyphosate residues on certain foods, such as soy, corn, milk, eggs, and popcorn.

The new report,  Glyphosate: Unsafe on Any Plate, found high levels of glyphosate contamination in popular American food brands, such as Cheerios, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish and Ritz Crackers, and Stacy’s Pita Chips. According to the report, the levels that found in these products are above the levels associated with  organ damage  (above 0.1 parts per billion(ppb)). Among 29 different foods tested, the highest levels detected were found in General Mills’ Original Cheerios, at 1,125.3 ppb. Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips were the next highest, at 812.53 ppb. The testing and analysis was performed by Anresco Laboratories, which is an FDA registered laboratory. Glyphosate residues have been detected in a wide variety of foods and products. In March 2016,  Moms Across America released a report  on glyphosate residues in California wines and found  that all of the ten wines tested positive for glyphosate. Other recent reports of the widespread presence of glyphosate residues find the chemical in  breast milk,  in German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and  bread, as well as  in nearly 100% of Germans  tested.

Glyphosate, created by Monsanto, is touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by industry. But glyphosate has been shown to have  detrimental impacts  on humans and the environment. Given its widespread use on residential and agricultural sites, its toxicity is of increasing concern. Roundup formulations can induce a dose-dependent formation of DNA adducts (altered forms of DNA linked to chemical exposure, playing a key role in chemical carcinogenesis) in the kidneys and liver of mice. Human cell endocrine disruption on the androgen receptor, inhibition of transcriptional activities on estrogen receptors on HepG2, DNA damage and cytotoxic effects occurring at concentrations well below “acceptable” residues have all been observed.

In June 2016, at a  Congressional briefing  sponsored by U.S Representative Ted Lieu, a delegation of independent scientists including this study’s authors, presented their findings, urging lawmakers to call on the EPA to ban RoundUp (glyphosate). Beyond Pesticides participated on the panel, providing testimony on the impact of glyphosate on soil systems, as well as the unreasonable risk it poses to humans, animals, and the environment. Following the congressional briefing, scientists spoke at a closed meeting with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), explaining the biochemical and physiological reasons why exposure to glyphosate is linked to autism, Alzheimer’s, cancer, birth defects, obesity, and gluten intolerance, among other health issues. However, EPA indicated that much of the information provided may not impact their current risk assessment for glyphosate, which is expected sometime in 2017.

Then, in September 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs  released its Glyphosate Issue Paper  in which the agency is proposing to classify glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant for human health risk assessment.” The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) was scheduled to review EPA’s evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate on October 18-21, but it was  postponed, due to “recent changes in the availability of experts for the peer review panel.”  However, as veteran journalist, formerly with Reuters, Carey Gillam reports  in the Huffington Post, the move was likely the result of a letter industry front group CropLife America sent to EPA just days before the postponement, challenging the bias of certain experts on the panel. Croplife America is a national trade association that represents manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of pesticides, and has a vested interest in tamping down consumer concerns over glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. Currently, the FIFRA SAP meeting has been  rescheduled  for December 13-16, 2016.

In August, Beyond Pesticides, Organic Consumers Association, and Moms Across America  filed a lawsuit  against General Mills for misleading the public by labeling their Nature Valley brand granola bars “Made with 100% NATURAL whole grain OATS,” after it was discovered that the glyphosate, an ingredient in Roundup and hundreds of other glyphosate-based herbicides, is present in the Nature Valley granola bars.  In November, after Sue Bee honey products labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural” tested positive for  glyphosate  residue, Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) filed a lawsuit yesterday Sioux Honey Association, for the deceptive and misleading labeling of its Sue Bee and Aunt Sue’s honey brands. Both lawsuits are intended to move consumer demand away from natural products, which are produced in chemical-intensive production systems that have adverse effects on health and the environment, and toward organic, which eliminates the use of toxic pesticides.

Given the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards, environmental groups like Beyond Pesticides are urging localities to restrict or eliminate the use of the widely-used weedkiller, like Tracy Madlener, a mother of two,  successfully did last year. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through our  Tools for Change  page. 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. See Beyond Pesticides’ article  Glyphosate Causes Cancer  for more information.

Source:  Huffington Post,  Food Democracy Now!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 17, 2016) This week, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is meeting in St. Louis to hear public comments on organic agricultural issues that will ultimately influence standards and processes. One major issue before the board is a motion on whether hydroponic and aquaponics operations can be certified organic. Farmers that practice hydroponic growing techniques are hoping to get the attention of the NOSB as they make an argument for their place in the certified organic industry, while others will be there to reject these arguments and uphold organic as soil-based agriculture. Despite a 2010 recommendation from the NOSB to prohibit allowing hydroponic production to quality as organic, USDA’s National Organic Program allowed organic labeling of the sector, which has experienced rapid growth in recent years. Typically, consumers have no way of knowing that the organic labeled prodeucts they are buying were grown organically.

The NOSB is an advisory group, made up of 15 public experts, that makes direct recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on organic production, handling, and processing. In 2010, the NOSB recommended that farmers using hydroponic systems be ineligible for the organic certification. However, the National Organic Program (NOP) decided to ignore the board’s recommendations and allow hydroponic growers to achieve organic status, a move that neglects the spirit and intent of the Organic Foods Production Act.   Currently, there are 30 hydroponic, 22 aquaponic, and 69 container operations with organic seals issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Hydroponic farming is a method of growing plants without soil, typically in plastic containers or long PVC pipes. Nutrient-enriched water is then pumped through the containers in direct contact with the plants’ root systems. This process has long been embraced by conventional greenhouse producers for its simplicity, high yields, and lower costs.

Farmers that use hydroponic systems argue that their production methods are no different from their conventional counterparts who use soil as the growing medium. They also point out that they make organic farming more sustainable by reducing water and land use.

In an interview with the New York Times, Marianne Cufone, an aquaponics farmer and executive director of the Recirculating Farms Coalition, an aquaculture lobbying group, stated that “Soil to me as a farmer means a nutrient-rich medium that contains biological processes, and that doesn’t have to be dirt.”

San Diego farmer Colin Archipley of Archi’s Acres, grows kale, herbs and a variety of produce hydroponically in greenhouses. He is frustrated over this debate, whether or not his produce is organic or not. “The reason this has become such a big deal is that systems like ours are becoming more popular because they’re more efficient, which means farmers are more sustainable and profitable,” he said. “That’s put competition on farmers, specifically in Vermont, and so what this really is about is market protection.”

Soil-based organic farmers beg to differ.   These producers believe using soil as a growing medium is the basis of organic agriculture.   They believe organic farmers manage and improve the physical, chemical, and biological health of the soil, which can create environmental benefits that go beyond growing plants.

Steve Sprinkel, an organic farmer in Ojai, California points out that, “Soil has always been the basis of organic production.   The soil is alive and releasing micronutrients to plants that use their roots to scavenge and forage those things, and so taking care of the soil is the bedrock of organic farming.”

Beyond Pesticides supports the view that organic agriculture should be produced with soil-based farming techniques. Hydroponic growing systems use synthesized chemicals that are added to the irrigation water the plants are suspended in.   We believe in the natural process plants root systems undergo to extract nutrients from the soil.

The Organic Foods Protection Act states that: “An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation and manuring.” Based on this language, it would be assumed that hydroponics would not have a place at the organic table. The chief executive of OneCert, an organic certification business in Nebraska, feels that it’s a no brainer. He says that, “There are things the law and regulations require you to do to the soil that you cannot do in a hydroponic system.”

The United States lags behind with agricultural policy and environmental protection. The European Union, England, Mexico, Canada and Japan all exclude hydroponically grown produce from their organic standards. Experts predict that the explosive growth in hydroponic imports may force some organic farmers out of business in as little as five years.

Beyond Pesticides takes the position that organic does not allow an agricultural system that feeds nutrients to plants without upholding principles that protect and advance biodiversity, as well as sequesters carbon. Beyond Pesticides concurs with a central principle adopted by the NOSB in 2001 and published in the board Policy and Procedures Manual under the section entitled National Organic Standards Board, Organic Production and Handling: “Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. . .” For further information, see our article in the most recent edition of Pesticides and You, Farmers Rally to Stop USDA from Certifying Organic Hydroponics, which you can view here. To learn more about our efforts to protect organic integrity, visit our website here.

Source: NY Times