(Beyond Pesticides, September, 26, 2017) A congressionally mandated study belatedly released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) questions the feasibility of electronic disclosures as a means of providing consumers with information on genetically engineered (GE) food ingredients. The study, which should have been published in July 2017 by law, confirms concerns held by many that “electronic and digital disclosures” (QR codes) will pose technological challenges for consumers, limiting access to food information. The study was required by the 2016 Federal Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards Act (the “GE Labeling Act”) to help inform the establishment of federal standards for labeling by July 2018.

USDA issued the study just days after the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a lawsuit challenging the agency’s unlawful withholding of the required study. Twelve days after the lawsuit was submitted on August 24, USDA publicly released the study p. The labeling law allows USDA to consider several options: on-package text, a GE symbol on packages, or “electronic or digital disclosures,” which would require shoppers to use a smart phone to scan packages to access a website or call a 1-800 number for every single product to find out if it was produced with genetic engineering.

The study is crucial in analyzing if QR codes will make the information accessible or not, based on several factors. The study found that the proposed food labeling measures will not serve consumers who do not have access to technology. Specifically, the researchers found key technological challenges that prevented nearly all participants from obtaining the information through electronic or digital disclosure methods:

• Technological challenges disproportionately impact low-income earners, rural residents, and Americans over the age of 65.
• Consumers are unfamiliar with QR codes or do not know that digital links contain food information.
• Many of the more than 100 apps on the market that scan QR codes are not intuitive to use and include pop-up ads, causing consumer confusion.
• Consumers may not have equipment capable of scanning digital links on their own, and in most cases there is not a viable alternative provided by retailers.
• Consumers without phones are unlikely to find in-store scanners available and landlines do not provide a practical way of getting the information.
• Consumers may be unable to connect to broadband, or connect at a speed that is so slow that they cannot load information, particularly rural and low-income consumers.
• In-store scanners may be cost prohibitive for small and rural retailers and provide limited benefit due to limited consumer understanding and rapidly changing technology.
• The study also concluded that “offline alternatives are necessary for consumers who lack access to a scanning device or broadband.”

According to the study, 53 percent of adults say they care about the issue of GE food, with a third of that group caring a great deal. Half of all shoppers would likely be sensitive to labeling changes, as evidenced by increased consumer desire for food information which is pervasive across region, age, income, and gender. It is unclear how USDA plans to comply with the federal law’s other mandates for the study, including that the public be given the right to comment on it.  The labeling option that makes sense is on-package labeling which is quick, simple and effective.

Consumers have advocated for mandatory labeling of GE foods for nearly two decades. Polls show that over 90% of U.S. residents support requiring the labeling of GE foods, as 64 countries already do, including many U.S. trade partners such as the European Union and Japan. Consumers have become more and more aware that, while few whole foods are genetically engineered, the majority of processed foods are produced with GE ingredients. The public recognizes that having thousands of processed food products containing GE ingredients, yet going unlabeled is deceptive, misleading, or at best confusing.

Connecticut and Maine both passed GE food labeling laws in 2013, albeit with their effective dates contingent on the passage of similar standards in other states. In 2014, Vermont became the first state to pass a mandatory GE labeling law to go into effect in 2016. Numerous major food producers began to label their food for GE content in order to anticipate compliance with Vermont’s law. In response, Congress finally passed a GE labeling law in July 2016, preempting state laws and setting a federal standard in its place.

Genetically engineered foods pose risks that are not considered by regulators. The most dependable way to avoid GE ingredients is to buy organic, but all consumers have a right to know what is in their food.

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

Source: CFS Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, September 25, 2017) As the comment period officially begins for the Fall 2017 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting, a major controversy is coming to a head on allowing hydroponics to be certified organic. Contrary to prior recommendations of the NOSB, the National Organic Program has allowed some hydroponics operations to be certified. The NOSB will consider motions at this meeting that could stop this practice.

Make your voice heard on this and other issues by submitting comments NOW on what materials and practices are allowed in organic production! An easy way to speak out is to go to our website, find our positions, write your comments (using our summary –feel free to cut-and-paste our comments), and submit your comments on the government website. [Unfortunately, for those who are not familiar with commenting on these critical organic integrity issues, this action requires that you post your comments on the government’s ‘regulations.gov’ website. We have simplified this process through our Keeping Organic Strong webpage.]

Submit your comments now.

Beyond Pesticides provides you with our positions, which you can use as the basis for your comments. Please feel free to develop your own comments or cut and paste ours. If you cut and paste our comments into regulations.gov, please first put a personal note of concern in order to reflect the importance of these issues to you as an organic consumer, farmer, or other concerned party.

Some major issues being considered at the Fall meeting are:

Hydroponics
Organic production is soil-based and is defined by principles concerning the grower’s relationship to the soil. The “Law of Return,” the rule “Feed the soil, not the plant,” and the promotion of biodiversity, provide the ecological basis for organic production. The Law of Return says that we must return to the soil what we take from the soil. The dictum to “Feed the soil, not the plant” reminds us that the soil is a living superorganism that supports plant life as part of an ecological community. Finally, biological diversity is important to the health of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems. Biodiversity promotes balance, which protects farms from outbreaks of damaging insects and disease. It supports the health of the soil through the progression of the seasons and stresses associated with weather and farming. It supports our health by offering a diversity of foods. Hydroponics is not consistent with these principles.

The of the 2010 Subcommittee of the Hydroponics Task Force convened by USDA reminds us of these foundations, but also contrasts organic production and “conventional” chemical-intensive agriculture. At the time of the passage of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), the organic community’s characterization of soil as alive was viewed with amusement by the “conventional” agriculture experts, who saw soil as a structure for supporting plants, while farmers poured on synthetic nutrients –and the poisons that had become necessary to protect the plants growing without the protection of their ecological community. Interestingly, organic producers at that time compared conventional agriculture to hydroponics.

The term “container” is very broad, encompassing pots in various sizes and shapes, as well as beds that are not in direct continuous contact with the earth –such as rooftop gardens, or gardens in areas where an impervious layer protects plants from contaminated earth beneath. We support eligibility for organic certification of containers where the soil is managed organically. As discussed above, managing the soil organically involves many things –most could not be done in pots or most other containers, but would be possible in large beds. In particular, the organic regulations must be followed to the letter.

Containerized culture may be eligible for organic certification under limited circumstances in which organic soil-building and other organic practices are used. These are essentially the same practices that would be required for growing in permanent beds in the soil.

We support the proposals of the Crops Subcommittee majority for prohibiting hydroponics and delineating acceptable practices for organic containers.

Marine materials (Seaweeds and products of seaweeds)
Marine biodiversity is important, and the roles played by marine algae (seaweed) are important to marine biodiversity and ecology. Human threats to marine environments include overfishing, global warming, biological introductions, and pollution. The NOSB should continue its efforts to clarify the identities of species of marine algae used in organic production as well as to develop guidance for the application of the wildcrafting standard to marine algae. Application of scientific names to seaweeds needs to be clarified to ensure protection, and any restrictions need to be justified.

The NOSB must investigate mechanisms for protecting marine ecology from the impacts of over-harvesting marine algae for use in organic products and production. It must also look at natural materials in use in crops and livestock as well as those on the National List. Lastly, the NOSB must protect rockweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) to the extent possible and specifically list it as a prohibited natural.

Seaweeds (marine algae) and products made from them should be allowed as ingredients in organic food, feed to organic livestock, and crop inputs only “when harvested from a designated area that has had no prohibited substance applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest and when harvested in a manner that ensures that such harvesting or gathering will not be destructive to the environment and will sustain the growth and production of the population of the species.”

“Inert” Ingredients in Organic Production
“Inert” ingredients frequently compose as much as 99% of pesticide products.  So-called “inert” ingredients are typically not biologically and chemically inert, and are not disclosed to users or others who may be exposed.  Due to NOSB scrutiny of active ingredients, “inert” ingredients may be the most hazardous ingredients in pesticide products used in organic production. We urge the NOSB to insist that NOP move forward quickly with implementation of the NOSB recommendations on inert ingredients. Allowing the current lack of movement to persist raises serious compliance issues and threatens the integrity of the USDA organic label.

Submit your comments now.

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

(Beyond Pesticides in Gardnerville, Nevada, September 22, 2017) For the second year, the Washoe Tribe has brought a 450 head herd of goats to its tribal land to manage weeds on its rangeland at the Stewart Ranch. The program, led by the Washoe Tribal Environmental Protection Department (WEPD), is being conducted with the Washington, DC-based organization Beyond Pesticides and Goat Green LLC., a goat grazing company based in Wyoming.

“We are goal oriented and want to heal all components of this living system including diversity in desired plants, recycling of all nutrients, water retention in the soil to prevent erosion and decrease runoff to the river.  The goat herd is a living tool and we work with deep respect for the land, water, animals and culture of the Washoe people,” says Lani Malmberg, co-owner of Goat Green, LLC.

The program is being launched as a pilot, an alternative to using herbicides for managing invasive weeds, including Perennial Pepperweed, Hoary Cress, Canada Thistle, Russian Knapweed and others.  Goat grazing has been demonstrated to be an effective tool because the herd eats unwanted vegetation then cycles nutrients back into the soil, thus fertilizing.  Goats get a drink and deliver water to dry sites one pint at a time, thus irrigating and with 1,800 hooves are aerating, mulching and tilling soils. Ms. Malmberg elaborates, “Unique enzymes and bacteria in their guts coupled with small and narrow triangular mouth shape aids goats in destroying over 99% of ingested weed seeds thus preventing weed spread.”

Goats headed for the river to get hydrated.

Other benefits beside weed management are fire mitigation, seedbed preparation, covering bare sites and filling niches with desire vegetation which builds stability and resilience in the ecosystem. All efforts prevent future problems from both natural stresses such as drought, flood, fire, wildlife trails and bedding grounds, etc. or man-made stresses, such as over-grazing, misuse of chemical treatment, road maintenance, as well as people and pets introducing new weed seeds

“We are thrilled to be a part of this project,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “With this project, the Washoe Tribal Council and Washoe Department of Environmental Protection promote a progressive approach to weed management, which respects Mother Nature,” Mr. Feldman said.

“We are pleased to bring this project to the reservation, which aligns with the Tribe’s commitment for enhancing weed treatment on the land and ecosystem without the use of herbicides,” said Norm Harry, Director of the Washoe Environmental Protection Department.

If you are in the area, or know someone in the area, reporters are invited to see the goats do their work. Please call Norm Harry at 775-265-8682 or Susan Jamerson at 775-265-8689 to arrange a visit.

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

See press release        

(Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2017) The First District California Court of Appeal issued an opinion Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging a California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) decision to approve additional uses for two bee-killing pesticides without disclosing the impact on honeybees.

Pesticide Action Network, Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides, represented by Earthjustice, filed the underlying lawsuit in 2014, seeking to halt DPR’s practice of approving ever more uses for neonicotinoid pesticides pending completion of the agency’s languishing scientific review of the evidence linking agricultural use of neonicotinoids to a global honeybee die-off. DPR began its scientific review in early 2009 after it received evidence that neonicotinoids are killing bees, but DPR has yet to complete its review or take meaningful action to protect bees. Instead, DPR has continued to allow increased use of neonicotinoids in California.

“DPR acknowledged almost 10 years ago that neonicotinoids are killing bees, yet the agency has approved more and more uses for these toxic pesticides every year since,” said Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie, who represented the groups. “It’s time for DPR to do its job and protect honeybees and the multi-billion dollar agricultural economy that bees make possible in this State.”

At issue in the lawsuit was DPR’s decision to expand the use of two powerful neonicotinoid insecticides – sold under the trademarks Venom Insecticide and Dinotefuran 20SG – despite the agency’s still-pending review of impacts to pollinators.  The case underscores larger problems with DPR’s unwillingness to comply with laws enacted to ensure that pesticides do not threaten human health, agriculture, or the environment.

“This ruling is welcome news, given the crisis facing bee populations in California and across the country, along with the resulting impacts on farmers and our food system,” said Paul Towers, Organizing Director and Policy Advocate at Pesticide Action Network. “We applaud the court for confirming that the state must evaluate the impacts not only of these two pesticides, but also the toxic combination effect of multiple pesticides, as well as meaningfully consider alternatives to their use.  This is a win for public health, the environment — and in particular honeybees.”

A growing body of independent science links the class of pesticides called neonicotinoids to bee declines, both alone and in combination with other factors like disease and malnutrition. Twenty-nine independent scientists conducted a global review of 800 independent studies and found overwhelming evidence of pesticides linked to bee declines.

“Unless halted, the use of these pesticides threatens not only the very survival of our pollinators, but the fate of whole ecosystems. DPR has a responsibility to step in and say no. Particularly in the current political climate, it is all the more important to continue to hold all regulators accountable and to have states step up and protect beekeepers and the environment,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director at Center for Food Safety.

“An overwhelming body of scientific literature calls for regulatory action to protect vulnerable pollinator and other non-target species from toxic pesticide use,” said Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides. “This court decision enforces regulatory responsibility to assess the full range of impacts caused by the indiscriminate pesticide poisoning in order to preserve essential ecological services that are critical to sustaining life.”

One in every three bites of food depends on bees for pollination, and the annual value of pollination services worldwide are estimated at over $125 billion. In the United States, pollination contributes $20-30 billion in agricultural production annually. And in California alone, almonds crops — entirely dependent on bees for pollination — are valued at over $3 billion.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 20, 2017) The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) copied dozens of pages from a Monsanto study in reaching its conclusion that glyphosate (Roundup) is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans,” according to recent report in The Guardian. EFSA’s recommendation is supposed to provide an independent analysis for European Union (EU) member states, which are deciding whether to approve the chemical. However, the scandal is raising new questions over the multinational chemical industry’s influence over the upcoming November vote. Late last month, French officials indicated they will vote against the reauthorization of glyphosate in the EU.

EFSA’s recommendation on glyphosate, known as its renewal assessment report (RAR), was released in 2015. EFSA’s RAR was released eight months after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from laboratory studies. At the time of the release, Beyond Pesticides and other watchdog groups noted that EFSA’s RAR only evaluated technical grade glyphosate, and not formulated glyphosate products, such as Roundup, which have inert ingredients that increase the overall toxicity of the product. EFSA indicated as much in the RAR, suggesting that the “toxicity of the formulations should be considered further.” And that, “…although some studies suggest that certain glyphosate-based formulations may be genotoxic (i.e., damaging to DNA), others that look solely at the active substance glyphosate do not show this effect. It is likely, therefore, that the genotoxic effects observed in some glyphosate-based formulations are related to the other constituents or ‘co-formulants.’”

Given that most glyphosate applications to gardens, landscapes, and farm fields use formulated products, such as Roundup, it is difficult to set aside these safety implications when considering classifications over carcinogenicity. However, The Guardian’s recent reporting adds another layer of uncertainty to EFSA’s RAR, as dozens of pages appear to be copied verbatim from an industry funded report produced by a Monsanto backed group known as the Glyphosate Task Force. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a similar approach aimed at influencing independent evaluators was undertaken by Monsanto shortly after IARC’s 2015 determination. In that case, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment released a report that drew almost solely on data provided by the Glyphosate Task Force.

A Monsanto spokesperson indicated to The Guardian that EFSA allowed the RAR report to be written the way it was because of the large number of studies that needed to be assessed.

This is not the first regulatory body that Monsanto has sought to influence over glyphosate’s cancer classification. In the U.S. the company is being criminally investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Inspector General over potential collusion between the company and top level EPA official Jess Rowland. Documents released in the discovery process over a lawsuit filed by cancer victims that link their illness to glyphosate exposure uncovered the collusion. The documents reveal that Deputy Division Director for the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Jess Rowland alerted Monsanto to the IARC determination months before its publication. This allowed Monsanto ample time to formulate a public relations campaign calling into question the integrity of IARC scientists.

However, despite Monsanto’s continued efforts to denigrate the international body, states and localities in the U.S. are taking action to restrict carcinogenic Roundup use. In California, the company failed to stop glyphosate from being listed under Prop 65, chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. And hundreds of local communities are taking action to eliminate glyphosate and other toxic synthetic pesticides from being used in their public spaces.

While pressure continues to mount in the EU to stop the reauthorization of glyphosate products, a transition away from chemical use in the US will require grassroots advocacy. Start your own local movement to stop toxic pesticide use in your community by arming yourself with the latest science on toxic chemicals and their alternatives, building a coalition of concerned residents, and taking your concerns to elected officials. Contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450 for assistance.

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

Source: The Guardian

(Beyond Pesticides, September 19, 2017) Soils on organic farms sequester more carbon for a longer period of time when compared to the soil on conventional chemical-intensive farms, according to a study conducted by researchers from Northeastern University and The Organic Center. The continuing effects of climate change necessitate a robust approach to both limiting and reducing carbon in the earth’s atmosphere. As the study shows, a wholesale transition from conventional to organic farming could play an important part in mitigating the effects of a warming planet.

In order to assess the impact of the differing production practices, researchers compared the soil on over 1000 organic and conventional farms throughout the U.S. Focus was placed on how the different approaches impact soil organic carbon, which is simply the amount of carbon contained in soil, and consists of two sources. The first is carbon that cycles through air, soil, and microorganisms. The second is more stable in the soil, and is contained in soil humus. Humus is not cycled in and out of soil. It is a complex of decayed organic matter that stores essential elements including carbon and nutrients in a highly stable state. The primary substances that make up humus are fluvic and humic acid, and the percentage of each was also measured by researchers at each farm observed in the study.

Results show that soils on organic farms contain 13% more total soil organic carbon than conventional farms. Levels of fluvic and humic acid were also 150% and 44% higher respectively in soils on organic farms when compared to conventional counterparts. Further, the study indicates that ability of organic soils to be a long-term source for carbon sequestration through the process of turning organic matter into humus (humification) was 26% higher in organic soils than conventional ones. Researchers indicate, “With the exception of water retention, comparisons of soil organic matter, fluvic acid, humic acid, and humification suggest that organic farming practices support healthy soils and build and/or or maintain soil organic matter more effectively than conventional farming practices.”

These data are in line with previous research that has revealed the benefits and role that organic farming practices can play in carbon reduction through sequestration. According to calculations from the Rodale Institute in 2014, soil sequestration has the potential to store the greenhouse gas emissions of up to 52 gigatonnes of CO2.

Organic agricultural practices also show a range of benefits beyond greenhouse gas reduction. Research published in 2016 found that U.S. counties with high levels of organic agricultural activity boosted median household incomes by roughly $2,000, reducing poverty levels by 1.3%. A 2015 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS) found similar results, with increased labor costs in organic being offset by a decreased need to purchase outside inputs that include nonrenewable resources like chemical fertilizers and pesticides. A recent 2017 report from the European Parliament also noted that organic production had significant benefits for human health. “Overall, consumption of organic food substantially decreases the consumer’s dietary pesticide exposure, as well as acute and chronic risks from such exposure,” the report says.

Meanwhile, conventional systems have been found to be particularly bad for soil, leading to a myriad of problems that effect personal and global economics, human health, and ecological stability. A report released in March of this year by French researchers finds that conventional pesticide use did not equate to higher profits for farmers. Further, a 2016 report published in Nature Communications found that the loss of soil microbial diversity adversely impacts the ability for soil to deliver valuable ecosystem services.  Indeed, another report published in 2016 by Danish researchers found that conventional agricultural practices had direct effects on populations of earthworms, springtails, mites, and other microbial life critical to the cycling of organic nutrients. There is growing evidence documented by Beyond Pesticides in its recent issue of Pesticides and You linking pesticides, soil microbiota, and the human gut microbiome to poisoning and resulting diseases.

It is little wonder why scientists at Washington State University recently determined that organic agriculture is essential to a sustainable future. While organic farmland is currently still a small portion of farms in production in the U.S., that number is growing rapidly as more and more consumers decide to buy organic.

Though organic products may be a bit more expensive, consumers know that what they’re getting is worth the price – safer food that is better for the environment. For more information on the impact of pesticides on soil health, see Beyond Pesticides’ Soil Biota webpage. Additional information on the benefits of organic production can also be found on the Organic Agriculture program page.

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

Source: The Organic Center

(Beyond Pesticides, September 18, 2017) Ask California to ban the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos that’s on the food we eat from California –since the administrator of EPA refused to take the action agency scientists said is necessary to protect children.

Tell California to ban chlorpyrifos!

In view of EPA’s retraction of its proposal to revoke food residue tolerances of the highly neurotoxic insecticide chlorpyrifos, despite its own assessment that the chemical is too toxic to children, it is especially important that California take action to ban the chemical. California, the home of the largest agriculture industry in the country, used over 1 million pounds of chlorpyrifos on over a million acres in 2012. EPA’s assessment is also support for the classification of chlorpyrifos as a developmental toxicant, an issue being considered on a parallel track by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which oversees the “Prop 65” list.

EPA’s assessment, which incorporates recommendations from a 2016 Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), finds that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos have mental development delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders. The SAP agreed with EPA that there is an association between chlorpyrifos prenatal exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in children. In 2016, EPA concluded that there is “sufficient evidence” that there are neurodevelopmental effects at low levels, and that current approaches for evaluating chlorpyrifos’s neurological impact are “not sufficiently health protective.”

As stated by U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) in introducing S. 1624 to ban chlorpyrifos, “The science linking chlorpyrifos to brain damage and neurodevelopmental disorders in children is undeniable. The EPA’s own scientists have established that chlorpyrifos on food and in groundwater is a threat to public health and should be banned.”

Epidemiological data also points to subpopulations that are disproportionately affected by chlorpyrifos exposures. Low-income African-American and Latino families, including farmworker families, continue to suffer the most, and this disproportionate impact creates an environmental justice problem that the state cannot continue to ignore.

Tell California to ban chlorpyrifos!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 15, 2017) Illegal cannabis grow operations are polluting California waterways with banned pesticides, according to reports from Reuters. Despite recent legalization of recreational marijuana in the state, California still accounts for over 90% of illegal grow operations within the U.S. The extent of contamination puts wildlife and drinking water at risk, necessitating increased monitoring and enforcement to stop ongoing ecological damage.

Unreleased reports obtained by Reuters indicate the presence of pesticides, such as diazanon and carbofuran, which have been linked to a range of adverse human health outcomes. Both chemicals inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE), an enzyme important for the transmission of nerve impulses. When AChE is inhibited, acetylcholine accumulates leading to overstimulation of neurotransmitters, resulting in muscle weakness, confusion, and paralysis, among other symptoms. Both chemicals have also been shown to be highly toxic to birds. According to EPA reports from the 1980s, carbofuran applications contributed to the death of between one and two million birds each year. Diazinon has likewise been linked to hundreds of bird kill incidents, with reports in the 1980s involving over 23 bird species in 18 states.

Reuters reports that law enforcement officers have been hospitalized from only touching plants or equipment contaminated with illegal pesticides. A police dog almost died from jumping in contaminated water, and there have been accounts of cows poisoned by nearby grow operations. “Carbofuran is in the water, and it’s not supposed to be,” said Mourad Gabriel, PhD, an ecologist who works with law enforcement on marijuana contamination issues to Reuters.

According to Dr. Gabriel, half of the streams in eight watersheds known for illegal cannabis cultivation are contaminated with pesticide residues. “It’s like a layer cake,” Dr. Gabriel indicated. “They put chemical on chemical on chemical. We’ll find different chemicals in the water on different years.” Indeed, while some creeks tested clear during one season, return testing is finding new chemicals making their way into streams, likely as a result of their movement through the soil.

In 2015, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, in coordination with the California State Water Resources Control Board, released guidelines associated with the management of pests and use of pesticides on cannabis. While codifying these rules is likely to reduce toxic pesticide use within legally operated cannabis grows, illegal production is requires a different set of enforcement tools. While stream monitoring would be an important method to track where these illegal operations occur, the state does not appear as though it will implement a testing program along with new rules. An official with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control board in northern California told Reuters that regular testing of waterways would be prohibitively expensive.

In addition, despite federal government land acting as the most frequent site for illegal cannabis operations, water testing near these toxic sites has been limited. That leaves local towns and counties with the responsibility of protecting their local ecology and drinking water supplies. For its part, Trinity County, located in northern California, is considering whether to establish a water testing scheme for the Trinity River, an important source of irrigation water, and well-known site for fishing and other recreational activities.

As outlined in the report, Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options, Beyond Pesticides supports measures to restrict pesticide use in cannabis to products that are certified organic and also on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) list of ‘minimum risk’ pesticides. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently took steps to restrict conventional pesticide use in cannabis production. Although likely politically motivated, the move does help pave the way for broader adoption of an organic systems approach by growers. However, the vast contamination of pristine ecosystems in northern California by illegal grow operations is an existential threat in many ways separate from the developments in the legal cannabis industry. Regulators and law enforcement at all levels of government must implement measures quickly that stop these destructive operations and halt the use of banned pesticides that should never have been allowed on the market in the first place.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2017) Children whose mothers took folic acid while pregnant had a significantly lower risk of developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) even when their mothers were exposed to household or agricultural pesticides. Researchers at the University of California, Davis found that taking folic acid during the window around conception, reduced the risk of pesticide-induced autism.

In the study, “Combined Prenatal Pesticide Exposure and Folic Acid Intake in Relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder,” children whose mothers took 800 or more micrograms of folic acid (the amount in most prenatal vitamins) had a significantly lower risk of developing autism spectrum disorder, even when their mothers were exposed to household or agricultural pesticides that are associated with increased risk. The study used data from the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) study, where researchers looked at 296 children between 2 and 5 who had been diagnosed with ASD and 220 who had developed typically. Mothers were interviewed about their household pesticide exposure during pregnancy, as well as their folic acid and B vitamin intake. The team also linked data from California Pesticide Use reports, which provided important details about agricultural spraying, with the mothers’ addresses.

The results show that mothers who were exposed to household pesticides and took less than 800 micrograms of folic acid during a window from three months before conception to three months afterward had a much higher risk of having a child who developed an ASD than mothers who took 800 micrograms of folic acid or more and were not exposed to pesticides. The associated risk increased for women exposed repeatedly to pesticides, especially chlorpyrifos, other organophosphate pesticides, and pyrethroids – often found in pet flea and tick products, and indoor and outdoor sprays and foggers.

“We found that if the mom was taking folic acid during the window around conception, the risk associated with pesticides seemed to be attenuated,” said Rebecca J. Schmidt, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences and one of the authors of the study. “Mothers should try to avoid pesticides. But if they live near agriculture, where pesticides can blow in, this might be a way to counter those effects.”

However, while folic acid reduced the associated risk of a child developing autism, it does not entirely eliminate it. “It would be better for women to avoid chronic pesticide exposure if they can while pregnant,” Dr. Schmidt said. According to the researchers of this study, folic acid plays an important role in DNA methylation – a process which turns genes on or off- as well as synthesizing and repairing DNA. During the critical stages where a developing fetus is undergoing rapid growth, folic acid may be helping a number of genomic functions. The authors caution that theirs is a case-control study that relied heavily on participants’ memories, and that a causal link has not been established. However, the results warrant a need for larger studies to validate them.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 1 in 68 children has been identified with ASD (or 14.6 per 1,000 8-year-olds). Studies have linked developmental disorders and autism to pesticide exposure. In 2014, researchers found that pregnant women who lived within a mile of agricultural fields treated with pesticides are more likely to have their child develop autism. The study found that living near a field where pyrethroids were applied during a woman’s third trimester corresponded with an 87% increased risk of having a child with autism. Another study reports that higher levels of some organochlorine compounds during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. Further, communities exposed to frequent aerial spraying for mosquito control experience elevated rates of autism diagnoses, according to new research. Additionally, pesticides are also associated with other neurological problems in children. A team from UC Berkeley CHAMACOS, studying organophosphate pesticide impacts on women and children in the Salinas Valley, found that every 522 pounds of combined organophosphate pesticide applications within one kilometer of a pregnant woman’s home correlates with a two point IQ loss in her children at seven years old.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the scientific literature related to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). One way to reduce human and environmental contamination from pesticides is buying, growing, and supporting organic food production and lawn and landscape management. Consumer choices encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table every day by purchasing organic. By buying organic, you support an agricultural system that does not permit the application of dangerous pesticides. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: UC Davis Newsroom

(Beyond Pesticides, September 13, 2017) According to a study published in the journal Biological Conservation, Monarch butterfly populations from western North America have declined far more dramatically than was previously known and face a greater risk of extinction – 86 percent in the next 50 years. The researchers do not know the exact cause but identify habitat loss and widespread pesticide use as likely culprits.

Migratory monarchs in the west could disappear in the next few decades if steps are not taken to recover the population, the study’s lead author, Cheryl Schultz, PhD, an associate professor at Washington State University Vancouver states. “Western monarchs are faring worse than their eastern counterparts. In the 1980s, 10 million monarchs spent the winter in coastal California. Today there are barely 300,000,” she said.

Western monarchs (Danaus plexippus) have a spectacular migration. They overwinter in forested groves along coastal California, then lay their eggs on milkweed and drink nectar from flowers in the spring in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Utah. They then return to their coastal overwintering sites in the fall. Eastern monarch, whose numbers are also in decline, travel instead across the border into Mexico to wait out the winter. The researchers from Washington State University, working with communities along the coast of California, pooled data on butterfly numbers from across the state to create a single estimate of the western monarch’s numbers. They then predicted the monarch population’s risk of extinction over the next several decades. The study concludes that current trends indicate an extinction risk of 72% in 20 years and 86% in 50 years.

The study, “Citizen science monitoring demonstrates dramatic declines of monarch butterflies in western North America,” funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), notes the exact causes of the decline in western monarchs are not yet clear, but the loss and modification of its habitat and pesticide use across the West, where monarchs breed, are likely culprits. Climate change and threats to coastal California overwintering sites likely also play a role.

Dr. Schultz adds, “This study doesn’t just show that there are fewer monarchs now than 35 years ago. It also tells us that, if things stay the same, western monarchs probably won’t be around as we know them in another 35 years.”

FWS is set to determine whether to protect monarch butterflies under the Endangered Species Act. An agreement was made with Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity in July 2016 which requires the agency to decide by June 2019 whether the butterflies will receive federal protection. This agreement came in response to a lawsuit earlier that year to force the agency to set a legally binding deadline for a decision on a 2014 petition calling for protection of the species. Many see FWS’ consideration of federal protection for monarchs as a positive step toward improving habitat and raising awareness about the decline of the butterfly, as well as the plight of other pollinator populations

Monarch butterflies are one of many important pollinator species that have experienced drastic declines in recent years. Monarch butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed that grows wild, and reduced sources of milkweed pose a threat to monarch populations.  The use of genetically engineered (GE) crops (Roundup-ready crops) allows the use of Monsanto’s glyphosate in cropland, which is an important factor in the decline of the monarch. Glyphosate eradicates milkweed and the dramatic surge in Roundup use and “Roundup Ready” crops has virtually wiped out milkweed plants in Midwestern corn and soybean fields. It is estimated that in the past 20 years these butterflies have lost more than 165 million acres of habitat.

Along with threats from glyphosate use and habitat loss, the use of neonicotinoid pesticides has also been linked to monarch declines. A 2016 study found that the increasing use of neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides is correlated with a steep decline in butterfly health and reproductive success. This study looked at 67 species of butterfly in Northern California and found a correlation between butterfly population decline and increasing neonic applications, which also appeared to be more severe for smaller-bodied species. According to the researchers, the results suggest that neonics could influence non-target insect populations when applied nearby. Pesticides like neonicotinoids also harm other non-target pollinators like honey bees and other bee species. Studies show an association with decreased learning, foraging and navigational ability, as well as increased vulnerability to pathogens and parasites, in bees.

Critical to the survival of monarchs, other pollinators, and organisms essential to ecological balance is the large-scale adoption of organic farming practices. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture  as effecting good land stewardship and a reduction in hazardous chemical exposures for workers on the farm. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to a serious public health and environmental threat.

There are several steps that may be taken to attract beneficial insects like monarchs and protect backyard habitats. Like any other living organisms, pollinators need food, water, and shelter in order to thrive. Planting milkweed in your backyard is a surefire way to help monarch populations. For more information, see Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind  and Hedgerows for Biodiversity: Habitat is needed to protect pollinators, other beneficial organisms, and healthy ecosystems.  More information is available in the BEE Protective Habitat Guide and Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity.

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

Source: Phys.org, Reuters.com

(Beyond Pesticides, September 12, 2017) A new report released by Pesticide Action Network-UK finds that children in England’s schools are exposed to 123 pesticide residues in their daily lunches. The results call attention to the health and safety implications of pesticide exposure to children, which have developing body systems more sensitive to pesticide exposure. PAN-UK and other health groups are calling for a wholesale changeover to serving onlyorganic fruits and vegetables in schools.

England’s Department of Health runs a School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme that provides children aged four to six with one free piece of fruit or vegetable each school day. There is no doubt of the scheme’s good intentions, as it aims to help children reach a recommended five servings of healthy food each day. However, PAN-UK discovered over 123 different pesticide residues found on the food items distributed to school children. Well over 70% of raisins, soft citrus, pears, strawberries, and apples had more than one pesticide residue found on them.

There is a well-known and developing body of scientific literature which finds that mixtures of pesticide residues can result in synergistic impacts which increase toxicity when compared to an active ingredient alone. And because children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of pesticide exposure, the results of the report are particularly concerning for parents.

PAN-UK’s findings indicate that pesticide residues on fruit and vegetable served under the Department of Health’s Scheme were consistently higher than mainstream produce sold in grocery stores. “While we applaud the DoH’s efforts to get children eating more fruit and vegetables, our research shows that the produce they are being given is generally worse than on the supermarket shelves,” said Nick Mole, Policy Officer at PAN-UK.

According to calculations conducted by PAN-UK, switching the scheme to organic food would cost only 5.6 million pounds ($7 million dollars), which works out to 1 British penny per child per day. Nick Mole indicates that, “Given how little it would cost to switch the scheme to organic, the government shouldn’t be putting our children’s health at risk when there are other options available.”

Studies find that switching children from a conventional to an organic diet reduces or eliminates the presence of toxic residues in their urine. Further, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2012 indicated that organic food is the right choice for children’s health. AAP states in its report, “in terms of health advantages, organic diets have been convincingly demonstrated to expose consumers to fewer pesticides associated with human disease. Organic farming has been demonstrated to have less environmental impact than conventional approaches.”

In the U.S. concerned Moms and Dads across the country have worked to transition their child’s school system to serving organic foods, no national scheme exists to provide children with these healthier fruits and vegetables.

In the absence of such a scheme, Beyond Pesticides encourages parents to pack lunches with organic food for now, but in the long term, get involved with the food choices being offered in their child’s school system. You can even help start an organic garden to get the school on the right track. Take action today by sending a letter to your local officials, urging them to tell school systems to adopt organic school lunches, and maintain school landscapes through organic practices.

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

Source: PAN-UK Press Release 

(Beyond Pesticides, September 11, 2017) Ten of 11 samples of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream tested positive for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s dangerous Roundup herbicide.

The ice cream brand says its social mission “seeks to meet human needs and eliminate the injustices in our local, national and international communities,” and that its focus is “on children and families, the environment and sustainable agriculture on family farms.”

Send a message to B&J CEO now!

Behind the iconic ice cream brand’s greenwashed façade is an unfortunate truth: its ice cream relies on a dairy industry that produces contaminated food, poisons Vermont’s waterways, abuses animals, exploits workers, bankrupts farmers, and contributes to climate change.

Unless Ben & Jerry’s goes organic, its practices are responsible for:
•    Running Vermont family farms out of business.
•    Polluting Vermont’s waterways.
•    Abusing animals.
•    Exploiting farmworkers.
•    Contributing to climate change.
•    Putting human health at risk. In addition to the above problems, pesticides like Roundup, atrazine, and metolachlor —all carcinogens and endocrine disruptors— have devastating effects on human health. And they’re in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

Yet, the Vermont brand that has used the image of cows grazing on endless pastures to sell their products now buys milk from ‘confined animal feeding operations’ or CAFOs, where cows graze on concrete with a diet rich in GMO corn and pesticides.

This is greenwashing. Groups are joining together to say that it is  time for Ben & Jerry’s to be the leader that it portrays.

If Ben and Jerry’s wants to live up to its image, it needs to go organic –like Alden’s Organic, Julie’s Organic and Three Twins –all of which tested negative for glyphosate.

Sign the petition to Ben and Jerry’s CEO Jostein Solheim –to truly protect the environment, children, and workers, and support sustainable agriculture, Ben and Jerry’s should go 100% organic.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 8, 2017) Wetlands are important habitats for many creatures, and provide critical environmental services that impact human, economic, and social activity and mosquito management. Wetlands improve water quality, sequester carbon, remove or neutralize pollutants, control flooding, protect adjacent areas from erosion, and host a multitude of beneficial plant and animal species — not to mention their recreational and aesthetic value.As recently reported in The Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal, a federally funded project underscores the importance of wetlands in controlling mosquito populations.

The Courier-Journal article highlights the construction of 12,000 square feet of new wetlands and marshlands in Louisville. The project was funded with a $9,500 grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and arose from the partnership of the Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District, the Sheltowee Environmental Education Coalition, and a local nonprofit, the Passionist Earth & Spirit Center. Thomas Biebighauser, a wildlife and wetlands biologist, designed the project, which also involved engineering students from the University of Louisville. Impetus for the initiative was in part educational, and in part, a response to the facts that as far back as the 1980s, the area had lost more than 70% of its original wetlands to agriculture and development, and stretches of the nearby Beargrass Creek had been “straightened” to enhance “flood control.”

Creation of these new wetlands might cause people reflexively to worry about increased mosquito populations. But as Mr. Biebighauser notes, these new wetlands areas are not the highly polluted wetlands of past decades, which did sometimes spread disease via mosquitoes. A training program in constructing highly functional wetlands says, “Wildlife Biologist Tom Biebighauser has sampled hundreds of natural and constructed wetlands on [Kentucky’s] Daniel Boone National Forest. He has found few to none contain mosquito larvae, and nearly all contain mosquito predators. An important fact . . . is that the watersheds of these wetlands are typically vegetated with grasses and trees, with no erosion or pesticide runoff. In other words, they’re healthy.”

Healthy, functioning wetlands actually can result in fewer mosquitoes, because such areas invite and support a host of beneficial species, many of whom predate on mosquito larvae. Among those are dragonfly larvae, damselfly larvae, water striders, diving beetles, salamanders, frogs, and toads. In addition, swallows, bats, ducks, fish, and adult dragonflies, which thrive in or near such habitats, consume adult mosquitoes. Native sedges, rushes, and wildflowers, which help attract these beneficial organisms, will be planted around the small ponding areas of the project.

Wetlands are sometimes described as Nature’s “kidneys” for their cleaning and filtering functions. Wesley Sydnor, a Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District engineer who oversees stormwater programs, and who helped with the effort, says, “There is a lot of water quality value in the practice of routing runoff through wetland treatment before it gets into the stream.” Wetlands also reduce flooding because they act as a “sponge,” absorbing excess water that might otherwise flood adjacent areas.

Use of wetlands as mosquito management mechanisms may seem ironic; people commonly think of them as sources of mosquitoes because the organisms need standing water for breeding. Indeed, mosquito “control” programs often recommend draining wetland areas as a strategy. But wetlands restoration or construction controls populations by providing good habitat for mosquito predators, and by preventing or reducing flooding in areas that aren’t normally wet and therefore support mosquitoes but not their predators.

Mosquitoes have extremely short life cycles (4–30 days), but the laid eggs can remain dormant for more than a year, only to hatch when an area again becomes wet. Areas that have been drained might need only a rainstorm to trigger hatching of existing eggs, and can produce more mosquitoes than they would have had they been left as functioning wetlands. Healthy wetlands can result in fewer mosquitoes than those that have been “managed” with some typical control approaches, such as drainage, channeling, or biological or chemical means.

The Indiana Wetland Conservation Plan points out that when the Essex County (Massachusetts) Mosquito Control Project restored a 1,500 acre wetland, the mosquito population dropped by 90%. The plan suggests, “If you own or manage drained wetlands, you can expect ‘blooms’ of mosquitoes after every rain. If you’re tired of donating blood, consider restoring or creating a healthy wetland. Within days, natural predators of mosquitoes will begin to return. Not only will you be reducing the mosquito population, you’ll also be creating excellent wildlife habitat, reducing the likelihood of flooding on adjacent ground, improving water quality, and possibly, [seeing] other benefits, as well.”

Outside of wetlands, and often on people’s residential or other properties, there are many areas of standing water that do boost mosquito populations — old tires, containers, untended bird baths, clogged gutters, hollow logs, even shallow areas that don’t percolate well and create temporary “pools.” A single tire collecting rainwater can breed more than 500 mosquitoes. People are concerned, of course, about the diseases that mosquitoes can transmit. It’s important to be aware that the West Nile Virus is transmitted primarily by Culex pipiens, the “house mosquito,” which does not like to breed in wetlands, but loves to do so in the various areas or containers people tend to provide.

There are myriad ways to support nontoxic approaches to controlling mosquito populations: one is to encourage healthy wetlands by advocate with your municipality and state for wetlands restoration or construction initiatives where that makes sense. Cleaning up any rainwater collectors is another, as is installing bat houses or tree swallow nesting boxes wherever possible to invite these avaricious mosquito predators to take up residence.

Beyond Pesticides emphasizes eliminating such collection objects or areas on one’s property to limit mosquito populations and reduce the need for more destructive or toxic controls (such as pesticides), and suggests methods for safely repelling mosquitoes. Learn more about backyard mosquito management, and share the information with neighbors, the community, and municipalities with Beyond Pesticides’ handy doorknob hanger.

Source: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/environment/2017/08/31/new-wetlands-benefit-bellarmine-university-st-agnes-catholic-school/609351001

(Beyond Pesticides, September 7, 2017) Last month, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration for its failure to comply with the 2016 federal law on the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) food, National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law.  Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are charged with implementing the new labeling rules, and part of that process is a study on “electronic and digital disclosures” (QR codes) for GE foods, as opposed to on-package text.  That study was required to be finished by July 2017, with an opportunity for public commetn, but USDA never met it legal obligation.

The federal lawsuit is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against USDA regarding that agency’s failure to comply with mandatory deadlines established by the 2016 Federal Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards Act (the “GE Labeling Act”). The suit contends that the “American public deserves full disclosure, the right to transparency and free choice in the marketplace.”

Consumers have advocated for mandatory labeling of GE foods for nearly two decades. Polls show that over 90% of U.S. residents support requiring the labeling of GE foods, as 64 countries already do, including many U.S. trade partners such as the European Union and Japan. Consumers have become more and more aware that, while few whole foods are genetically engineered, the majority of processed foods are produced with GE ingredients. The public recognizes that having thousands of processed food products containing GE ingredients, yet going unlabeled is deceptive, misleading, or at best confusing.

The federal GE food law requires USDA to establish federal standards for labeling by July 2018, and conduct a study to inform its rulemaking, which is why it was required to be completed a year earlier. One of the most controversial aspects of the law is how it will require companies to label GE foods, and whether companies will be able to forgo clear, on-package labeling through the use of QR codes and other digital disclosures. The new federal law allows USDA to consider several options: on-package text, a GE symbol on packages, or “electronic or digital disclosures,” which would require shoppers to use a smart phone to scan packages to access a website or call a 1-800 number for every single product to find out if it was produced with genetic engineering.  The study is crucial because it will analyze if this type of digital labeling will make the information accessible or not, based on several factors.  If USDA concludes, based on the study, that these disclosures will not provide consumers sufficient access, then USDA must require consumers be given alternative options.

“Americans deserve nothing less than clear on-package labeling, the way food has always been labeled,” said George Kimbrell, Legal Director for CFS. “Allowing companies to hide genetically engineered ingredients behind a website or QR code is discriminatory and unworkable.”

In the U.S., there has never been a food labeling requirement for QR” codes instead of on-package labeling. Electronic labeling will not provide disclosure to a large portion of Americans, disproportionately affecting minority, low-income, and elderly people:

• Studies show that half of low-income people do not own smartphones.
• Almost half of rural people do not own smart phones.
• Minorities make up a disproportionate percentage of low-income and rural Americans.
• Two-thirds of the elderly do not own smart phones.
• Overall, only 64% of Americans own a smart phone.
• Few people have ever used a QR code: only 16% have ever scanned a QR code and only 3% of those people do it regularly.

A shopper would have to scan all of the many items s/he is shopping for on any given shopping trip (which for a family of 4 could easily amount to more than 50 items).  This would be an undue burden on the consumer and greatly impede access to information that is currently required for all other forms of food labeling. On-package labeling is simple, quick, and effective. QR codes, websites, and 1-800 numbers are not.

Connecticut and Maine both passed GE food labeling laws in 2013, albeit with their effective dates contingent on the passage of similar standards in other states. In 2014, Vermont became the first state to pass a mandatory GE labeling law, which would go into effect in 2016. Numerous major food producers began to label their food for GE content in order to anticipate compliance with Vermont’s law. In response, Congress finally passed a GE labeling law in July 2016, preempting state laws and setting a federal standard in its place.

For more information on GE labeling and the dangers associated with GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides program page. And for the details on how certified organic is the right choice for your family and the environment, see our webpage on

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

Source: Center for Food Safety Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, September, 2017) A recently released report, Gallup-Sharecare State of Well-Being: The Face of Diabetes in the United States, looks at high diabetes rates across various U.S. demographic groups, including those in farming. People working in the transportation sector registered the highest incidence of diagnosed diabetes at 10.6%. But those working as farmers and fishermen came in second, with 8.5% reporting a diagnosis of the disease.

Based on a self-reporting survey, The Face of Diabetes in the United States did not differentiate between Type 1 diabetes (which typically manifests in childhood or young adulthood) and Type 2 diabetes (which commonly emerges in adulthood). It did, however, consider lifestyle risk factors that can influence development of each form of the disease.

The “farmer and fisher” folks placed more-or-less in the mid-range among all occupations vis-à-vis several of the lifestyle factors that can impact development of the disease (smoking, diet, and obesity), and a bit higher in alcohol consumption, but in fact, reported more exercise than any other category of worker. These data points would seem to suggest that farmers would be at less risk than those in some other occupational categories. For instance, those working in “installation and repair” reported higher rates of obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and poor diet, and lower rates of exercise, yet experienced only a 6.2% rate of diabetes diagnosis. The Gallup-Sharecare report asks what might account for such a high incidence in the agricultural sector, and then identifies a particular potential explanation.

New Food Economy suggests that the answers may well be related to factors the report did not consider: exposure to toxic chemicals in farmers’ work environments — specifically, insecticides and herbicides. Numerous studies have found evidence that such exposures elevate the risk of developing diabetes.

Age may be a factor that — on its own — increases diabetes risk; given the higher average age of farmers (58.3 in 2012) compared with that of other occupational groups, this might offer some explanation of farmers’ higher diabetes rate.

The long-term Agricultural Health Study (AHS) of 89,000 farmers who had exposures through application of pesticides, and their spouses, was launched in 1993 by the National Cancer Institute. The study reported in 2008 that participants who had exposure to three kinds of toxic pesticides — the organochlorines aldrin, chlordane, and heptachlor; the organophosphates dichlorvos and trichlorfon; and the herbicides alachlor and cyanazine — had (after controls for age and BMl, or body mass index) increased risk of developing diabetes.

A 2014 study, using data from the AHS, reviewed 13,637 female spouses (of farmers) who had themselves mixed or applied any of 50 different pesticides, and found increased associated diabetes risk from exposure to specific organochlorines and organophosphates. Matt Kelly of New Food Economy, says, “These AHS-based studies draw on and are part of a growing body of research that suggests the organochlorine pesticides and other organic pollutants that persist in our environment over time are connected to increased risk of diabetes among different populations of people.” A 2016 meta-study (of 22 other studies) pointed to an association between organochlorine pesticide exposures and development of Type 2 diabetes.

Evidence continues to implicate toxic pesticide use in development of a number of human diseases, including diabetes, though the mechanisms are not yet always clear. It is thought that, generally, the organic compounds in pesticides that don’t readily decompose through typical chemical, photolytic, or biological processes bind to particular human proteins and receptors that tend to mediate functions such as insulin production, glucose metabolism, and glucose homeostasis — and then disrupt those processes.

Beyond Pesticides has also noted that evidence points to endocrine disruption as a potential mechanism: “The interactions and mechanisms of toxicity of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in relation to human general health problems, especially those broadening the term of endocrine disruption to ‘metabolic disruption,’ should be deeply investigated. These include endocrine disturbances, with particular reference to reproductive problems and breast, testicular, and ovarian cancers, and metabolic diseases such as obesity and diabetes.”

EDCs generally cause disruption because their molecular structure mimics closely that of molecules that are part of normal endocrine processes. ED chemicals, of course, have no business binding to the receptor sites meant for those endemic processes, but they can, and can thus disrupt normal endocrine function. For example, a University of Buffalo study has linked carbamate pesticides to diabetes. Researchers discovered that the insecticides carbaryl and carbofuran were structurally similar enough to melatonin that they “showed affinity for” melatonin receptors, and could potentially affect glucose homeostasis nd insulin secretion.

Another possible mechanism is the alteration of normal functioning of the gut microbiome — in ways that contribute to the development of diabetes — as toxic pesticides are metabolized by microbes in the human gut. A group of scientists at Madurai Kamaraj University in India, for example, reported in 2016 on their research indicating that organophosphate insecticides may cause diabetes through this mechanism.

There are approaches to agricultural challenges that inflict far less risk on those who work in the sector, as well as the general population. Beyond Pesticides remarks, on the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database page on diabetes, “There are no groups in the human population that are completely unexposed to pesticides. Development of eco-friendly pesticide alternatives and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques is desirable to reduce the impacts of pesticides.”

There are myriad ways to avoid pesticide exposures, and to help protect farm workers by advocating for nontoxic solutions to agricultural challenges that too many farms continue to address with toxic chemicals. The power of the consumer purse is also not to be underestimated. Buying and consuming organic (or at least “sustainably produced”) foods as much as possible sends a strong signal to producers, leverages more organically grown food, and can improve health outcomes for all.

Sources: The New Food Economy: Why do so many farmers have diabetes, and Gallup-Sharecare State of American Well-Being: The Face of Diabetes in the United States.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 5, 2017) The bog copper butterfly (Lycaena epixante) is a member of the second largest family of butterflies, Lycaenidae, which includes over 4,700 species worldwide. Also known as the cranberry-bog copper butterfly, the species has strong biological ties to cranberry plants and its associated habitat.

Range
Bog coppers are unevenly distributed throughout Northeast United States and into Canada, with some ranging as far west as Minnesota. Populations are generally concentrated in acid bog environments containing wild cranberry, but have also been sighted in other damp acidic habitats, such as wet meadows. The butterfly requires an environment that is wet year-round, with ample sunlight. Bog coppers are highly adapted to this environment and do not migrate.

Diet and Pollination
The life cycle of the bog copper strongly depends on cranberry plants. Female butterflies lay single eggs leaves in late summer or early fall on the leaves of cranberry plants, usually near the edge of the bog, covered with sedges. Each female may lay 20-40 eggs. After developing into a first stage larva within the egg, the larva is protected from ice and freezing temperature during the winter by entering state of diapause, or dormancy. The egg is protected from dessication by the moist environment under the leaf, and from flooding by a convoluted membrane that traps bubbles of air. Bog coppers spend roughly 85% of their lives in their egg stage, emerging as larvae in spring to feed on cranberry leaves where the egg was laid. After a brief pupation period, bog coppers emerge as adults, and mating occurs 2-3 days before the females lay eggs, repeating their life cycle. Cranberry-bog copper adults feed almost solely on cranberry nectar, and their life cycle is timed so that emergence of adults coincides with flowering of cranberries. It may come as no surprise that the species is an important pollinator of wild cranberries.

Physiology
The bog copper is the smallest of the copper butterflies found in the United States, with a wing span ranging just under an inch. Both males and females have wings which are colored dark grey to brown on the front side, with a tinge of purplish gloss. Males also have black dots and an orange zig-zag line at the base of the front side of their wings. Both sexes have a white colored border around the edge of their wings. The back side of both males and females is generally colored grey to tan with small black spots and a reddish zig-zag at the base.

Ecological Role and Threats to Existence
Bog coppers are important pollinators of both large and small cranberry plants. The cranberry bog copper is not an important part of commercial cranberry production, because the butterfly is highly sensitive to insecticide exposure. Thus bog coppers are rarely found in commercial cranberry farms, leaving pollinators like the honey bee to perform the necessary pollination.

Recent research from Ellwood et al. finds that as a result of climate change, bog coppers and cranberry plants are increasingly mismatched ecologically. Cranberry plants flower earlier in warmer years. This is leading to unhappy consequences for bog coppers, which have not been known to alter their behavior in response to temperature changes. Thus, if cranberries flower earlier than bog coppers emerge as adults, the butterflies are likely to miss out on their critical food source. For any bog coppers who may incidentally be on a non-organic cranberry farm, early flowering may mean that the bog copper emerges at a time when insecticide spraying is most active.

In addition to insecticide use, cranberry-bog coppers are at risk from habitat destruction. Acidic areas where the insects live are prime spots for the development of peat mining or the creation of industrial cranberry operations. Natural hazards have always posed a threat –beavers, ecosystem engineers, can both create and destroy the conditions that bog coppers need to thrive. This small pollinator is also at risk from fire, natural succession to forests, and severe floods.

How to Protect the Species
Encourage a safer environment for cranberry-bog coppers by purchasing organic cranberries and cranberry products. Conventional cranberry production is known to make use of neonicotinoid insecticides, which once applied, will make their way into a plant’s vascular system, and express itself in its pollen and nectar. Given that the bog copper’s entire life cycle depends upon consuming the cranberry plant, it is little wonder why so few are found in and around commercial cranberry bogs. In addition to insecticides, conventional cranberry production applies significant quantities of fungicides, such as chlorothalonil and azoxystrobin, which are also likely to affect non-target pollinator species such as bog coppers. Buying organic will encourage the industry to transition to practices that do not necessitate the use of these toxic chemicals, and are likely to make commercial cranberry production a safer environment for the bog copper.

Although bog copper populations are considered relatively stable, their long-term outlook is questionable. While there are many states and localities where native cranberry bogs are protected, pressures from climate change and development will remain a factor for many years to come. Protecting these species will require concerted efforts to preserve their native habitat, and eliminate the introduction of environmental stressors such as pesticides.

Citations
Averill, A. and Sylvia, M., 1998. Cranberry insects of the Northeast.

Elwood et al. 2013. Cranberry flowering times and climate change in southern Massachusetts. International Journal of Biometerology. DOI 10.1007/s00484-013-0719-y https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256480641_Cranberry_flowering_times_and_climate_change_in_southern_Massachusetts

Encyclopedia of Life, N.D. Bog Copper. http://eol.org/pages/2682626/details#cite_note-rcgt-2

Moths and Butterflies of North America. N.D. Bog Copper. https://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species/Lycaena-epixanthe

Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program. N.D. Bog Copper. http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/factsheets/11718.pdf

Pelikan, Matt. 2014. A highly evolved butterfly. MVtimes. http://www.mvtimes.com/2014/07/02/highly-evolved-butterfly/

Severns, P.M., Boldt, L. and Villegas, S., 2006. Conserving a wetland butterfly: quantifying early lifestage survival through seasonal flooding, adult nectar, and habitat preference. Journal of Insect Conservation, 10(4), pp.361-370.

United States Forest Service, N.D. The Bog Copper. https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/pollinator-of-the-month/bog_copper.shtml

Wright, D.M., 1983. Life history and morphology of the immature stages of the bog copper butterfly Lycaena epixanthe (Bsd. & Le C.)(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 1, 2017) Tell your Governor to stop Monsanto from making false and deceptive claims about glyphosate (Roundup) –a pesticide that hurts workers. Because of its wide use by workers in parks, along utility and railroad rights-of-way, and on farms, use of Monsanto’s glyphosate results in more exposure than any other pesticide. Monsanto has developed and continues to grow its market for this product with false claims of the safety of the toxic chemical. Glyphosate is listed as a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (World Health Organization) and disrupts a pathway in humans necessary for healthy functioning of the gut microbiome. Meanwhile, Monsanto actively advertises and promotes its Roundup products as targeting an enzyme “found in plants but not in people or pets.”

Act now to urge your Governor to act on false claims by Monsanto.

Although EPA considers glyphosate to be “of relatively low oral and dermal acute toxicity,” symptoms workers could experience following exposure to glyphosate formulations include: swollen eyes, face, and joints; facial numbness; burning and/or itching skin; blisters; rapid heart rate; elevated blood pressure; chest pains, congestion; coughing; headache; and nausea.

The additional ingredients in Roundup can be more toxic than glyphosate alone, resulting in a number of chronic, developmental, and endocrine-disrupting effects. The “inert” (non-disclosed) ingredients in Roundup formulations kill human cells at very low concentrations. At least some glyphosate-based products are genotoxic.

Because glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway, crucial for manufacturing aromatic amino acids in plants but not animals, Monsanto claims that it does not harm humans. However, many beneficial bacteria use the shikimate pathway, and glyphosate, in fact, is a patented antibiotic. Glyphosate destroys bacteria in the human gut and, therefore, is a major contributor to disease. 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. The rise in these same diseases is tightly correlated with the use of glyphosate herbicides, and glyphosate exposure can result in the inflammation that is at the root of these diseases. Glyphosate appears to have more negative impacts on beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to flourish and enhancing antibiotic resistance.

Although consumers are at risk from Monsanto’s glyphosate products, the workers who apply it and work in fields and parks, and along rights-of-way where it is used are at greatest risk.

There is precedent for states acting on false claims by manufacturers. Massachusetts sued Bayer for false and deceptive claims on the label for its neonicotinoid products that harm bees. Every state can seek to protect against a false and deceptive claim under consumer protection and truth in advertising law.

Act now to urge your Governor to act on false claims by Monsanto.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 31, 2017) Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara report in a new study that exposure to pesticides as a result of living near agricultural areas increases the risk of giving birth to a baby with abnormalities. These results are more significant for those exposed to very high levels of pesticides, underscoring the continued risks faced by farmworkers and farmworker families, especially mothers living near chemically-intensive treated fields.

The study, “Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California,” looked at individual birth and demographic characteristics for over 500,000 birth observations between 1997 and 2011 in the agriculturally dominated San Joaquin Valley, California. The researchers, who report their findings as, “the most comprehensive to date, bringing together the largest data file ever compiled on street-address level birth outcomes and fine scale exposure to agricultural pesticides,” analyzed residential agricultural pesticide exposure during gestation, by trimester, and by toxicity influences on birth outcomes: birth weight, gestational length, or birth abnormalities. Adverse birth outcomes increased by 5–9% among those exposed to very high quantities of pesticides (e.g., top 5th percentile, i.e., ~4,200 kg per square mile applied over gestation). According to the results, “ The magnitude of effects were further enlarged for the top 1%, where these extreme exposures (>11,000 kg per square mile) led to an 11% increased probability of preterm birth, 20% increased probability of low birth weight, and ~30 g decrease in birth weight.”

Numerous chemicals are used daily in close proximity to residential areas, making it difficult to ascertain a specific responsible agent. As a result, in this study, the researchers looked at the combined results from all pesticides used in the region. Looking at pesticide use by aerial and ground application, the study finds that exposure to high pesticide levels from ground applications had a significant effect on birth weight, gestation, preterm birth, and birth abnormalities. The authors note ground application represents roughly 95% of total active ingredients used and, thus, high ground exposure represents most of the cumulative pesticide exposure measure.

“If we can identify where and why these extremely high levels of use are occurring, particularly near human settlements, policymakers and health workers can work to reduce extreme exposures near agricultural communities via information campaigns or farmer outreach,” said lead author Ashley Larsen, PhD, assistant professor in UCSB’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.

The San Joaquin Valley is an agricultural region of California where pesticide use is widespread. More than one-third of U.S. vegetables and two-thirds of fruits and nuts are produced here. Pesticides are applied to crops here intensively, and can vary dramatically in their use. For instance, commodities, such as grapes, receive nearly 50 kg ha⁻¹ per year of insecticides alone in the San Joaquin Valley. San Joaquin county also has the highest numbers of schools within ¼ mile of pesticide application, but in this study not all agricultural fields were in proximity to human settlement. Areas with consistent births and pesticides are a small fraction of the San Joaquin Valley, and the researchers theorize, if extreme pesticide areas and vulnerable populations could be identified, strategies or interventions could be developed to mitigate the likelihood of extreme exposures. Farmworkers of San Joaquin Valley and their families are exposed to pesticides by loading, mixing or applying pesticides, and by secondary exposures to pesticides migrating into homes via pesticide drift or residues on skin and clothi

In addition to adverse birth outcomes, studies also report other developmental effects from pesticide exposures.  A 2014 study conducted by the UC Davis Mind Institute found that pregnant women who lived within a mile of treated fields more than tripled their chances of giving birth to a child with autism. Additionally, the UC Berkeley CHAMACOS team, studying organophosphate pesticide impacts on women and children in the Salinas Valley, found that every 522 pounds of combined organophosphate pesticide applications within one kilometer of a pregnant woman’s home correlates with a two point IQ loss in her children at seven years old.

In order to facilitate access to epidemiologic and laboratory studies based on real world exposure scenarios that link public health effects to pesticides, Beyond Pesticides maintains the Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database, commonly referred to as PIDD. The scientific literature documents elevated rates of chronic diseases among people exposed to pesticides, including birth defects and developmental impairments. This new study underscores an urgent need for public policy at all levels –local, state, and national– to end dependency on toxic pesticides, replacing them with carefully defined green strategies. The current database, which contains hundreds of studies, is continuously updated.

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

Source:
Science Daily
The Independent (UK)

(Beyond Pesticides, August 30, 2017) Preventing the 250,000 farmer suicides globally from pesticide self-poisoning requires more than household security measures. It requires the removal of highly toxic pesticides from the market, according to a study recently published by The Lancet. Global suicide rates associated with pesticide use is tracked by the World Health Organization, with 89% taking place in rural Asia, where the current study was conducted. By encouraging a transition to safer organic practices, and implementing restrictions on imports containing toxic pesticides, developed countries like the U.S. can assist in reducing farmer suicide rates.

Research in The Lancet, published by a team of scientists from Sri Lanka and the UK, looked at suicide rates within 180 Sri Lankan villages, representing over 200,000 individuals and over 50,000 households, over the course of three years. Households in half of the villages (90) received lockable pesticide storage containers, while the remaining villages, acting as a control group, did not. Suicide by pesticide is associated with impulsivity, the authors indicate, so the purpose of the study was to investigate whether encouraging active individual means to restrict access (means restrictions) would lower suicide rates. Means restriction is a method of suicide prevention, which includes eliminating access to areas or items people might use to take their own life.

After three years, 61% of households that received the storage containers were storing pesticides away, with 53% locking them away. In the control group, 52% were storing pesticides, and 5% were locking them away. However, incidents of pesticide self-poisoning were ultimately very similar between the two groups. The villages that received the pesticide storage lockers recorded 611 cases of suicide, while the villages in the control group recorded 641.

Thus, researchers found no evidence that household storage lockers would prevent suicides, indicating a failure of active individual means restriction. Indeed, authors conclude that the only successful method of means restriction that has shown to reduce pesticide self-harm is to completely remove highly toxic pesticides from agricultural use.

“A worldwide ban on the use of highly hazardous pesticides is likely to prevent tens of thousands of deaths every year,” said lead author David Gunnell, DSc, of University of Bristol, to the Daily Star.

Already, the study notes, by implementing alternative pest management approaches that focus on less hazardous pesticides, Sri Lanka has reduced suicides rates by 75% over the last 20 years, saving over 93,000 lives. And unsurprisingly, the country has not suffered any measurable drop in agricultural yields.

Developed countries like the U.S. can play an important part in reducing suicides in rural agricultural areas. Buying organic not only contributes to a system that respects the natural environment and stops exposure to toxic pesticides, it also reduces demand for toxic pesticides in areas of the world where farmer suicides are alarmingly high. Coupled with evidence from past studies that link pesticide exposure to suicidal ideations, as well as depression, even in developed countries, this research strongly supports a ban on toxic pesticides in favor of organic practices. In addition, small and peasant farmers, who are encouraged to adopt chemical-intensive farming practices, typically take on high debt and face insect and weed resistance that results in crop failure and financial ruin.

For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and farmworkers in the agricultural communities that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.

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

Source: The Daily Star

(Beyond Pesticides, August 29, 2017) Air monitoring in Kern County, California, finds levels of the highly neurotoxic pesticide, chlorpyrifos, in excess of the levels of concern established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for pregnant women. Chlorpyrifos is linked to low IQs, autism and other developmental neurological effects. Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt refused to ban chlorpyrifos to the dismay of many scientists, medical professionals, and farmworker organizations.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) released its 2016 air monitoring data where it was revealed that chlorpyrifos air concentrations for a one-month period at the air monitoring site on the campus of Shafter High School in Kern County was 39.4 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m³) – more than 18 times higher than EPA’s level of concern for pregnant women (2.1 ng/m³).  Shafter High School is some distance from fields in an area where chlorpyrifos use is not as high as in other parts of Kern County or elsewhere in California. More than 1.1 million pounds of chlorpyrifos was used in California in 2015, and more than a quarter of that is used in Kern County.

High chlorpyrifos levels at a school means that children and unsuspecting teachers and parents, especially those that may be pregnant, are breathing in unusually high levels of chlorpyrifos. Children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos have developmental delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders. A 2014 study conducted by the UC Davis Mind Institute found that pregnant women who lived within a mile of fields where chlorpyrifos was sprayed more than tripled their chances of giving birth to a child with autism. Additionally, the UC Berkeley CHAMACOS team, studying organophosphate impacts on women and children in the Salinas Valley, found that every 522 pounds of combined organophosphate pesticide applications within one kilometer of a pregnant woman’s home correlates with a two point IQ loss in her children at seven years old.

Prior to CDPR’s release of its air monitoring data, two pesticide drift incidents involving chlorpyrifos occurred in Kern County that harmed dozens of farmworkers. As many as 37 workers in a crew of 48 cabbage pickers and packers at a field south of Bakersfield began feeling ill about an hour into their shift early on May 5th. Some began fainting and vomiting, and at least five workers received medical attention. The pesticides involved in the incident drifted a half-mile from where they were applied, in violation of California law. Another incident in early August affected seventy farmworkers harvesting garlic. Here, seven workers suffered exposure symptoms that included eye and skin irritation, nausea and headache. According to the Kern County Agriculture Commissioner, this incident is under investigation, and two companies have already been fined in the first incident. In these incidents, chlorpyrifos was not the only pesticide used nearby, however. The soil fumigant metam sodium was being used nearby in the second incident, and sulfur was also found on plants near workers at the site from the May 5^th incident. Although pesticides are regulated individually, an increasing body of research indicates that workers are often exposed to pesticides in combination, which may interact in ways that are currently little understood.

New rules proposed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to protect children from exposure to hazardous agricultural pesticides include a quarter-mile buffer zone from 6am to 6pm on school days around schools and daycares for the most drift-prone application methods — a safeguard advocates point out would have been insufficient in this case.

In March 2017, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt reversed a 2015 proposal to revoke food residue tolerances of chlorpyrifos, even though EPA’s own assessment found that the chemical is too toxic to children. A revocation of chlorpyrifos tolerances would have effectively banned the chemical from use in agriculture. Instead, Administrator Pruitt’s decision indicated the agency will continue to study chlorpyrifos and would not take any action until 2022. Epidemiological data also points to subpopulations that are disproportionately affected by chlorpyrifos exposures. Low-income African-American and Latino families, including farmworker families, continue to suffer the most, and this disproportionate impact creates an environmental justice problem that the agency cannot continue to ignore.

Currently, there is a bill, “Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act,” S. 1624, that would amend the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) that oversees pesticide food exposures to prohibit all chlorpyrifos use. Introduced by Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), the bill also directs EPA to partner with the National Research Council to assess the neurodevelopmental and other low-dose effects of exposure to organophosphate pesticides to agricultural workers and children.

Take Action: Ask your U.S. Senators to co-sponsor legislation to ban chlorpyrifos after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt reversed the previous administration’s proposal to discontinue its food uses. [The bill is currently co-sponsored by Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR).]

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

Source: Pesticide Action Network News Release

(Beyond Pesticides, August 28, 2017) School policies must protect children from pesticides by adopting organic land and building management policies and serving organic food in cafeterias. At the start of the school year, it is critical for school administrators to make sure that students and teachers are learning and teaching in an environment where no hazardous pesticides are used in the school’s buildings or on playing fields. It is also essential that children have access to organic food in food programs and manage school gardens organically.

Send a letter to your local officials urging them to tell school districts to adopt organic management and serve organic food to students.

In addition, there are other things you can do:

Whether a parent, teacher, student, school administrator, landscaper or community advocate, there are steps that should be taken to make sure the school environment is a safe from toxic chemicals, as the new school year begins.

For Parents and Teachers:

Because children face unique hazards from pesticide exposure due to their smaller size and developing organ systems, using toxic pesticides to get control insects, germs, and weeds can harm students much more than it helps. The good news is that these poisons are unnecessary, given the availability of practices and green materials that do not poison people or the environment.

Studies show children’s developing organs create “early windows of great vulnerability” during which exposure to pesticides can cause great damage. This is supported by the findings of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which concluded, “Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity.” You can help to eliminate children’s exposure to toxic chemicals by urging school administrators to implement organic management practices that use cultural, mechanical, and biological management strategies, and, as a last resort, defined least-toxic pesticides. See Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe^TM database for managing all insects and weeds without toxic pesticides.

Find Out About Your School’s Pest Management Program
One way to protect children is to find out whether the school has a pest management policy in place already, and identify key allies to improve it. Since toxic pesticides are not necessary to effective pest management, it is important that schools and school districts have a written organic pest management program. This will ensure that the program is institutionalized and will continue to flourish over time. See here for more details and practical steps on how to get organized and improve a school’s pest management program. For additional information, see Beyond Pesticides’ School Organizing Guide.

Non-Toxic Lice Management
Children going back to school may face challenges with head lice, and research has found that lice in 25 of 30 states in a U.S. study have developed resistance to common over-the-counter treatments like the insecticide permethrin, which therefore are not effective. Utilizing non-toxic approaches and products is critical, especially since lice are not a vector for insect-borne disease, and typical pesticide products used to treat them can be neurotoxic or carcinogenic. Fortunately, this nuisance insect can be managed utilizing a number of alternative lice treatment methods that do not include the use of toxic chemicals. One method for eliminating head lice is the use of hot air, which desiccates the insects and eggs, killing them. Lice and their eggs (or nits) can be combed and handpicked, and then destroyed in soapy water. Beyond Pesticide’s ManageSafe Database has a comprehensive webpage dedicated to safe management of lice, in addition to preventive practices.

Pack Organic Lunches or Start an Organic Garden
Organic foods have been shown to reduce dietary pesticide exposure. Children who eat a conventional diet of food produced with chemical-intensive practices carry residues of neurotoxic organophosphate pesticides that are reduced or eliminated when they switch to an organic diet.  The effects of pesticide exposure have been well documented, particularly for vulnerable segments of the population like children and pregnant women. In 2012, AAP weighed in on the organic food debate, recognizing that lower pesticide residues in organic foods may be significant for children. In addition to direct health effects, the Academy also noted that choosing organic is based on broad environmental and public health concerns, including pollution and global climate change —a position that is supported by Beyond Pesticides. Ask the school to adopt an organic lunch program, starting with organic produce, milk or juice. See School Lunches Go Organic for more information.

In addition to serving organic food in the cafeteria, it can be both helpful and a valuable part of the lesson plan to grow food in an organic school garden. For more information, The Organic School Garden (or Grow Your Own Organic Food for technical advice). School gardens teach children where food comes from and establishes healthy relationships with food and the natural world.

Promote Biodiversity with Organic Landscapes and Turf
Biodiversity helps bees and other pollinators; diverse plants produce a supply of nectar throughout the growing season, and biodiversity of soil organisms promotes healthy plants that grow well without the introduction of poisonous pesticides.

Playing fields that are intensively managed with chemicals are at greater risk for disease and weed infestation (leading to a dependence on chemical inputs), compared with practices that build healthy, balanced soil. Similarly, chemically-managed fields are generally harder and more compacted due to a loss of natural soil biology, while organic management focuses on cultural practices, such as aeration, that alleviate compaction, improve moisture retention, and provide a softer, better playing surface. See the factsheet, Pesticides and Playing Fields, for more information.

Protect biodiversity through organic turf, playing fields and landscape policies. Encourage the school to plant pollinator-attractive plants in its garden as part of its biology class. If the school does not have a garden, request one be integrated into the curriculum. Wildflowers, native plant and grass species should be encouraged on school grounds. For more information on attractive flowers, see the BEE Protective Habitat Guide. Also see the Do-It-Yourself Biodiversity factsheet and Managing Landscapes with Pollinators in Mind for resources on building and protecting biodiversity.

For College Students:

On college campuses nationwide, grounds crews and landscapers often maintain the land with toxic pesticides, even though safer alternatives exist. College students across the country want their campuses to be a safe and healthy environment. To assist with college studies, Beyond Pesticides has developed the BEE Protective Ambassador Program.

BEE Protective College Ambassador Program

The widespread use of systemic pesticides in agriculture and landscaping, specifically, a class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids (neonics), has been implicated in causing poor pollinator health and widespread bee deaths. Therefore, a key focus of the program is to eliminate the use of neonics on college campuses.  A critical part of being a BEE Protective Ambassador is to engage with college administrators in the creation of a pollinator-friendly campus.
“BEE” prepared: you may get some pushback about phasing out toxic pesticides on campus. But contrary to what some administrators and groundskeepers may tell you, a college campus can be maintained successfully without toxic, systemic pesticides!

With the fall semester rapidly approaching, now is a great time to take the BEE Protective Ambassador Pledge. With assistance from Beyond Pesticides, BEE ambassadors will be given  educational information to with college  administrators. Students who are interested in joining the movement to protect pollinators and save the bees, can become a Bee Protective Ambassador and sign the pledge!

Send a letter to your local officials urging them to tell school districts to adopt organic management and serve organic food to students.

See Beyond Pesticides Children and Schools webpage.

(Beyond Pesticides, August 25, 2017) While organic agriculture still represents only a fraction of the world’s food production, organic food sales have enjoyed remarkable growth over the past couple of decades, which is captured in a recent article, Building a global platform for organic farming research, innovation and technology transfer, published by Springer online. This growth of organic is propelled by consumers and farmers who recognize significant environmental and health advantages of organic, compared to chemical-intensive agriculture. In this context, studies conclude that organic agriculture may be the best way to meet the world’s food security and environmental needs.

A bit of history for some context on this issue: for millennia, of course, all agricultural was “organic.” Even the Industrial Revolution — which brought the combustion engine that enabled machines that made tilling, planting, and harvesting less animal-bound and human-labor intensive — had minimal impact on other aspects of how food was planted, raised, and harvested.

In the 1960s, the so-called “Green Revolution” took hold, powered in part by the post-WWII technological and industrial boom in scientific and technical discoveries and applications, and in part by a rapidly growing global population that shared inequitably in the world’s food production. This “revolution” introduced and promoted intensive, largely petroleum-based and synthetic chemical inputs (primarily fertilizers and herbicides/pesticides), and genetic manipulation techniques. Although the adoption of this approach resulted in significant increases in production, it has, during its 50-year hegemony in parts of the globe, brought with it alarming levels of pollution and degradation of the natural environment, poorer soil and animal health, and increased plant vulnerability to climatic stresses, diseases, and pests.

Those are among the issues that organic agriculture successfully addresses. It improves soil health and quality; sequesters carbon; reduces erosion; increases biological activity that suppresses disease and pests, and boosts plant immunity to infection; improves cycling of nutrients in soil, making them more bioavailable to plants; and yields more healthful forage for livestock. In addition, organic yields are sometimes more stable in the face of environmental or weather stresses; and organic protocols boost populations of pollinators and beneficial insects, and lower pesticide residues.

Moving to organic agriculture seems obvious, so why isn’t it happening at a faster clip? Perhaps it is because there is still disagreement about efficacy and question of feeding the world, but also, because, as discussed in the article, there are barriers to broader adoption, including technological obstacles; policies that continue to favor use of chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides); dependency in livestock practices on petrochemical inputs and dubious animal health approaches; and an economic system in which food prices fail to reflect the environmental, health, and social costs of food production.

On the persistent question of whether organic agriculture could produce enough to feed the 7.5 billion people who inhabit the planet (and the 11.5 billion the U.N. predicts by 2100), studies have reached different conclusions.  However, most research has focused on the question of yield.

Proponents of organic see organic yields and cost of production as competitive. “There are actually myriad studies from around the world showing that organic farms can produce about as much [as], and in some settings, much more [than], conventional farms. Where there is a yield gap, it tends to be widest in wealthy nations, where farmers use copious amounts of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides in a perennial attempt to maximize yields.” More recent research showed organic yields in North America and Europe at 80% of conventional yields, and some studies show an even narrower gap. And notably, in the world’s poorer countries, where food insecurity is most extreme, “the yield gaps completely disappear.”

Assessing yield gaps between conventional and organic agriculture is a real “apples to oranges” conundrum, not least because production varies with myriad factors, including geography, soil characteristics, weather, farm-specific practices, etc. A very large, 2015 meta-study found organic yields to be 19.2% (with a ±3.7% margin of error) lower than conventional yields, and identified “entirely different effects of crop types and management practices on the yield gap compared with previous studies. For example, we found no significant differences in yields for leguminous versus non-leguminous crops, perennials versus annuals, or developed versus developing countries. Instead, we found the novel result that two agricultural diversification practices, multi-cropping and crop rotations, substantially reduce the yield gap (to 9 ± 4% and 8 ± 5%, respectively) when the methods were applied in only organic systems.”

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic food and agriculture, noting that an “Organic Green Revolution,” using integrated farming practices such as cover crops, organic no-till, and composting, can not only substantially improve yields, but also, protect and restore soil and environmental health. In 2009, Beyond Pesticides said, “Organic agriculture can increase world food security as it offers affordable, immediately usable, and universally accessible ways to improve yields and access to nutritional food in developing countries. A 2008 report cited in a paper from the United Nation Environmental Programme (UNEP) notes that not only can organic agriculture feed the world but it may be the only way we can solve the growing problem of hunger in developing countries. UNEP states that its extensive study ‘challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity.’ In an analysis of 114 farming projects in 24 African countries, UNEP reports that organic or near-organic practices result in a yield increase of more than 100 percent.”

In 2009, Beyond Pesticides reported on a 2008 Rodale Institute research paper, titled The Organic Green Revolution, including a review of replicated research, shows that the latest scientific approaches in organic agriculture offer affordable, immediately usable, and universally accessible ways to improve yields and access to nutritional food in developing countries.

Some have predicted catastrophe should the world convert to organic farming. At a 2002 conference, award-winning plant breeder Norman Borlaug said, “We aren’t going to feed 6 billion people with organic fertilizer. If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time.” Cambridge University chemist John Emsley pulled no punches in his assessment: “The greatest catastrophe that the human race could face this century is not global warming but a global conversion to ‘organic farming’ — an estimated 2 billion people would perish.” Still others believe that organic agriculture is an inefficient approach to food security. (For a primer on the question, see this Worldwatch Institute article.]

Despite the different perspectives, the impetus for organic growth is driven by a desire to address the multiple environmental and health problems that humanity faces. Still, challenges and obstacles to the advancement of organic abound.

IFOAM–Organics International, a consortium of 800 organizations across 100 countries — an umbrella of sorts for the organics movement — is acting on those challenges. In 2013 it formed its Technology Innovation Platform (TIPI) to advance organic farming through research, development, innovation, and technology transfer. By engaging stakeholders, including researchers, farmers, consumers, and all those along the “value chain” of food systems, it hopes to develop an agenda for advancing organic production and to advocate for funding initiatives that do so.

IFOAM notes that the kind of research and investment that can help organic farming practices grow and improve is currently insufficient to the task. In recent years, such investment has increased, but it is still a pittance compared to conventional/industrial agriculture’s spending on agrochemicals, genetic engineering, CAFOs (confined animal farming operations), and other approaches that organic practices disallow. Global investment in “organic supportive” research and development activity [as of 2011] was .5% of the total investment in agricultural R&D. During the past couple of decades, especially, there has been an overall decline in public funding of ag research, and a concomitant rise in the rate of corporate investment in proprietary biotechnology (think, e.g., of Monsanto and its dominance in GE soybean seeds in the U.S. because of its development of the glyphosate herbicide, Roundup). IFOAM also points out that “agroecological research seen as compatible with organic farming systems does not provide the same incentives for private sector investment in research and development because their benefits are long-term and are public goods.”

TIPI has identified three strategic research approaches for the sector: (1) develop research methods appropriate for organic food and farming systems; (2) renew partnerships between farmers, farm advisors, scientists, and consumers; and (3) integrate technological, social, and ecological dimensions of innovation. It also advocates for three “pathways,” or goals, for the advancement of organics: (1) organic agriculture becomes the preferred land use system in rural areas worldwide; (2) food and ecosystem security are attained through eco-functional intensification; and (3) organic agriculture produces healthful food in an equitable manner for the well-being of everyone. (See details on these strategies and their research implications in Table 2, here.)

A sampling of TIPI’s goals for enactment of those strategies includes: develop value-added food chains in rural economies; use local sourcing and processing; establish a norm of human, animal, soil, and plant health as primary axes of investigation; breed crops and livestock better suited to local conditions; design ag systems to enhance biodiversity; increase sustainable yields via use of polycultures, variety selection, improved crop rotation, and improved nutrient recycling; investigate relationships between organic food quality and human health; improve technologies to recover organic wastes and return them to the soil; examine and adapt traditional food processing to modern techniques to improve performance and quality of authentic, heritage foods; investigate ways to prevent contamination by pesticides, genetically modified organisms, and other contaminants in production and handling.

Organic agriculture can respond to our human and environmental sustainability needs, but it needs support from all corners. Beyond Pesticides advocates choosing local, organic goods whenever possible; see our Organic Agriculture pages for more information. As Paul Ehrlich and Lauren Ponisio point out, “The sustainability of society hinges on the future of agriculture.”

Source: Building a Global Platform for Organic Farming Research, Innovation and Technology Transfer

(Beyond Pesticides, August 24, 2017) Common pesticides used on canola crops significantly reduce bumblebee egg laying and may lead to local population extinction, according to new research published in the journal Nature by scientists at the Royal Holloway University of London. This is the latest study to investigate how neonicotinoids, insecticides linked to the global decline of pollinator populations, are changing the landscape that humans rely on for food production and other ecological services. Although this eye-opening study should be a wake-up call for regulators in the U.S., there is little indication that federal agencies tasked with protecting pollinators and the wider environment are willing to make changes that would affect the profits of multinational chemical companies.

Researchers began their study by visiting canola fields in the United Kingdom that had been treated with neonicotinoids, observing the distribution of various bumblebee species. One of the most abundant species found is Bombus terrestris, a key pollinator and the most common bumblebee throughout Europe. Colonies of B. terrestris were then purchased commercially, and roughly 230 queens were successfully mated in the lab.

In addition to pesticide exposure, scientists used length of hibernation as a variable in their experiment. This is because bumblebee queens can lose significant fat reserves during hibernation, and its length of duration can have an impact on its vulnerability to other stressors. Bumblebee queens were separated into several groups, with some exposed to thiamethoxam, others to a control (no treatment). Some queen bees underwent a six week hibernation, while others a longer 12 week period. Bees were exposed to real-world exposure levels of the neonicotinoid in their feed for a period of two weeks after hibernation, to mimic the natural process.

Overall, bumblebee queens exposed to thiamethoxam displayed a 26% reduction in egg laying compared to the control group. Although the authors indicate that the interplay between pesticide exposure and duration of hibernation was not significant, neonicotinoid-treated queens did begin egg laying sooner after waking from hibernation than the control group. This may be a stress-induced response, the study indicates, as fewer pesticide-treated queens laid eggs after pesticide exposure stopped than control queens. Indeed, by the end of the study, more untreated queens laid eggs than pesticide-treated queens.

Scientists extrapolated these data to model how this effect could manifest itself in the wild. With 26% fewer queens laying eggs as a result of pesticide exposure, models indicated a 28% chance that local populations of B. terrestris would eventually go extinct. This estimation was conservative, researchers note, as bumblebees are exposed to a range of additional stressors in real world conditions.

The results of this research align with a study published in May 2017 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, which may reveal the physiological effects behind infertile, pesticide-exposed queens. In a BBC News article, lead author, Dr. Gemma Barron, Ph.D., stated, “We consistently found that neonicotinoid exposure, at levels mimicking exposure that queens could experience in agricultural landscapes, resulted in reduced ovary development in queens of all four species we tested. These impacts are likely to reduce the success of bumblebee queens in the spring, with knock-on effects for bee populations later in the year.”

Prior research published in 2015 by Scottish researchers has also shown that neonicotinoids impair bumblebees’ brain function, leading to struggles at the colony level.  This is backed up by research also published in 2015 in Nature and PeerJ, which finds pollination impairment after exposure to neonicotinoids.

Although the evidence linking these insecticides to declines in pollinator populations, including both wild and manager bees, is robust and continues to strengthen, in the U.S., only states and localities have begun to take action to restrict neonicotinoid use in the environment. Despite strong scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently determined that these chemicals pose no significant risks to pollinators. Many watchdog groups, reporters, and advocates are concerned that the agency’s close ties to the chemical industry (as evidenced by recent reports of coordination over chemical reviews, including the Poison Papers, and reviews of chlorpyrifos and glyphosate), have influenced the agency’s decision making process when it comes to neonicotinoids. In light of this, Beyond Pesticides encourages a grassroots approach to restrict neonicotinoids and a range of chemicals at the local level. If you’re interested in getting active in your community, reach out to Beyond Pesticides at 202-543-5450 or [email protected] for resources and strategies you can use to protect your local pollinator populations.

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

Source: Nature