(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2018) On April 27, 2018, European Union (EU) member states backed a proposal to further restrict uses of bee-toxic neonicotinoids finding the pesticides’ outdoor uses harm bees. These restrictions go beyond those already put in place in 2013, and now all outdoor uses of clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam will be banned. Uses will only be allowed in permanent greenhouses where contact with bees is not expected. This historic move in Europe comes as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still drags its feet on finding neonicotinoids are too toxic for bees and other organisms and bans their use.

According to the European Commission, the protection of bees is an important issue since it concerns biodiversity, food production, and the environment. An EU committee approved the plan to tightly restrict the use of the insecticides, acting upon scientific advice this past February from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to tighten existing restrictions and protect bees, crucial pollinators. EFSA analyzed over 1,500 studies from academia, beekeeper associations, chemical companies, farmer groups, non-governmental organizations, and national regulators, and concluded that neonicotinoids do pose risks to honey bees and wild pollinators. In 2013, the EU placed a ban on the neonicotinoids on agricultural flowering crops, such as oilseed rape (canola), also based on an initial review by EFSA on the pesticides’ impact on bees.

Voting on the proposal had been postponed a number of times as countries were split on the move. However, the last meeting saw a majority voting in favor of the ban. Sixteen EU countries, including France, the UK, Germany, and Italy voted to ban the use of the three neonicotinoids. The new restrictions agreed to on April 27 go beyond the 2013 ban. All outdoor use of the three substances will be banned and the neonicotinoids in question will only be allowed in permanent greenhouses where no contact with bees is expected.

Environmental advocates welcomed the vote. Emi Murphy, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth said: “This a major victory for science, common sense and our under-threat bees. The evidence that neonicotinoid pesticides pose a threat to our bees is overwhelming.” Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis, welcomed the vote, stressing that “the Commission had proposed these measures months ago, on the basis of the scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority. Bee health remains of paramount importance for me since it concerns biodiversity, food production and the environment.” The European Commission will now adopt the new regulations in the coming weeks which will go into effect by the end of 2018.

In responding to The Guardian, Dave Goulson, PhD, at the University of Sussex, said the EU ban was logical given the weight of evidence but that disease and lack of flowery habitats were also harming bees. “Also, if these neonicotinoids are simply replaced by other similar compounds, then we will simply be going round in circles. What is needed is a move towards truly sustainable farming,” he said.

 Numerous scientific studies implicate neonicotinoid pesticides as key contributors to the global decline of pollinator populations. EPA’s own scientists have found that neonicotinoids pose far-reaching risks not only to bees but to birds and aquatic invertebrates. EPA is currently reviewing public comments on its preliminary ecological and human health risk assessments for the neonicotinoids clothianidin, thiamethoxam and dinotefuran, and a preliminary ecological risk assessment for the neonicotinoid imidacloprid. EPA’s risk assessments find deadly impacts to birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, poisoned insect prey, and contaminated grasses. Researchers have found that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction. A recent study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers found neonics widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that harm aquatic insects, and potentially the aquatic food web—the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Canada’s pesticide regulatory agency has recommended banning the most widely used neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, based on harms to aquatic ecosystems.

Given this historic move in Europe, U.S. regulators must also take action to protect sensitive species from toxic neonicotinoids. Help push EPA to take substantive action on neonicotinoids by urging your U.S. Representative to support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. With managed honey bee losses remaining at unsustainable levels and many wild pollinators at risk of extinction (1, 2, 3), it’s time, for the future of food and our environment, for the U.S. to finally protect pollinators.

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

Source: European Commission Press Release; The Guardian; BBC News

 Help Stop the Attack on Organic         Standards in the Farm Bill

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2018) Organic standards are under attack in the Farm Bill, H.R. 2, passed by the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives and in language emerging in the Senate Agriculture Committee. This adds to the attacks on which we have previously taken action.

Tell Congress to Vote Against the Farm Bill if It Weakens Organic Standards

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) gives the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) broad authority and responsibility to ensure organic integrity. The Farm Bill contains provisions that:

• Will permit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sidestep the NOSB in allowing post-harvest handling substances (sanitizers) to be used in organic production;
• Change the classification of types of people who may be appointed to the NOSB by adding employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers; and
• Force consideration of the judgment of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when those agencies find a material to meet their own (less stringent) criteria for use.

These provisions are a direct attack on the strength of organic standards. When OFPA was passed and placed under USDA authority, Congress established a board composed of members of the organic community –farmers, handlers/processors, retailers, environmentalists, public interest groups, scientists, and certifiers— to provide direction to USDA and maintain the integrity of the organic label. Organic production arose out of a concern about hazardous chemical-intensive practices and unprotective laws and regulations; hence, OFPA and standards recommended by the NOSB and adopted by USDA for organic production are more stringent than standards adopted by FDA and EPA. Now that organic production has become a nearly $50 billion dollar enterprise, politicians are under pressure from large producers that would like to get a share of the organic premium without meeting current standards. We must stop this attack and protect organic as a real choice for health and environmental protection.

These Farm Bill provisions will give USDA greater direct and indirect power to change the materials allowed in organic production to favor producers who do not meet all the criteria traditionally considered to be required of organic certified operations –such as hydroponics, poultry houses without real access to the outdoors, and dairy operations without meaningful pasture. Organic means something important. Let’s keep it that way!

Tell Congress to Vote Against the Farm Bill if It Weakens Organic Standards

See two other problem amendments in the Farm Bill: preemption of local regulation of pesticides, and elimination of EPA’s legally mandated scientific consultations on pesticides with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

Letter to Congress:

Please Vote Against the Farm Bill if It Weakens Organic Standards 

The Farm Bill (H.R. 2), as reported out of the House Agriculture Committee, will unacceptably weaken the standards now required for USDA certified organic food labeling. It does this by amending the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), which currently gives the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) broad authority and responsibility to ensure organic integrity. The Farm Bill contains provisions that:

• Will permit USDA to sidestep the NOSB in allowing post-harvest handling substances (sanitizers) to be used in organic production;
• Change the classification of types of people who may be appointed to the NOSB by adding employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers; and
• Force consideration of the judgment of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when those agencies find a material to meet their own (less stringent) criteria for use.

Please vote against H.R. 2 if these provisions are not removed.

They are a direct attack on the strength of organic standards. When OFPA was passed and placed under USDA authority, Congress established a board composed of members of the organic community –farmers, handlers/processors, retailers, environmentalists, public interest groups, scientists, and certifiers— to provide direction to USDA and maintain the integrity of the organic label. Organic production arose out of a concern about hazardous chemical-intensive practices and unprotective laws and regulations; hence, OFPA and the standards recommended by the NOSB and adopted by USDA for organic production are more stringent than standards adopted by FDA and EPA. Now that organic production has become a nearly $50 billion dollar enterprise, politicians are under pressure from large producers who would like to get a share of the organic premium without meeting current standards.

These Farm Bill provisions will give USDA greater direct and indirect power to change the materials allowed in organic production to favor producers who do not meet all the criteria traditionally considered to be required of certified operations –such as hydroponics, poultry houses without real access to the outdoors, and dairy operations without meaningful pasture. This is unacceptable to me as an organic consumer.

Please vote against the Farm Bill if these provisions are not removed.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 27, 2018)  After more than five years of intensive negotiations, European Members of Parliament (MEP) overwhelmingly passed the long-anticipated, new organic certification and labeling regulations, with 466 voting in favor, 124 against and 50 abstentions. While the European Union (EU) Council of Ministers, must formally adopt the regulations, their easy passage is expected. Regulations will take effect in January 2021. The new organic regulations are purported to provide more clarity to organic producers and consumers and to harmonize organic regulation across the EU. But, they also are likely to fuel disharmony with the U.S. National Organic Program (NOP) by failing to act swiftly to curtail fraudulent organic exports and by prohibiting hydroponics systems of production in organic, which the US currently allows.

“The development of organic production is a political objective of the EU,” According to the EP’s background document on the regulations. As a strategy for increasing organic agriculture, which now encompasses 6.7% of EU agricultural land, MEPs intend for the new regulations to encourage more farmers to go organic, enhance consumer trust in the EU organic logo, and improve the quality of organic food. According to the European Parliament’s press release, “Strict, risk-based checks will take place along the supply chain” to facilitate product traceability and boost consumer confidence in the authenticity of the organic foods they buy.

Similar to the situation in the U.S. where organic fraud is on the rise, the EU acknowledges the problem by requiring stricter fraud precautions to be taken. Equivalency rules that currently allow non-EU countries to comply with comparable but not exact standards will be phased-out, within the extended timeframe of five years. New regulatory language encourages operators who produce, prepare, import or use organic products to report suspicious imports to the appropriate authorities. Member states are also authorized to take their own enforcement action to avoid fraudulent imports and to notify other member states of their action.

It remains to be seen if these measures prove sufficient for U.S, organic consumers and producers to feel confident that the EU is affording adequate fraud protections for the organic food that passes through its borders. In the US, where at least half of the organic products sold are imported, a recent Inspector General Audit of USDA concluded that it was “unable to provide reasonable assurances” that imported commodities labeled organic were indeed coming from certified organic farms. The situation of rampant fraudulent imports has created substantial economic hardship for US organic grain and soy farmers, where per bushel prices and market share have plummeted since 2015. Executive Director of the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing, Inc., John Bobbe, estimates that between 60 and 70 percent of organic imports may be fraudulent. “Some come through Turkey, where fraud is rampant, and some from India, where standards are not checked thoroughly for sanitation issues. He thinks Turkish organized crime is involved, with colleagues in Russia and Ukraine.”

The other important point of contention between the EU’s and U.S,’ organic standards is the EU’s explicit prohibition of hydroponic systems of organic food production to be certified organic. In reaffirming that organic systems of production depend upon thriving soil ecosystems, the EU regulation states that “plants should be produced on and in living soil in connection with the subsoil and bedrock. Consequently, hydroponic production should not be allowed nor growing plants in containers, bags or beds where the roots are not in contact with living soil.”

This provision flies in the face of the 2017 decision of the U.S. National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to allow soilless, hydroponically-produced organic food without requiring labeling. The NOSB overturned a previous 2010 Board decision to prohibit the practice despite widespread public opposition and demands to “keep organic in the soil.” In response, this spring U.S. farmers have created the Real Organic Project, which rejects hydroponic as an organic method and establishes other standards that the U.S. Department of Agriculture refused to implement, despite explicit recommendations from the NOSB. The Real Organic Project is establishing an add-on label to the USDA certified organic label that will let consumers know which commodities meet the standards of the organic law and consumer expectations. While hydroponic food production is already forbidden in the EU, the new regulations clarify instances where non-soil based, organic production is allowed such as in the production of ornamental plants, sprouted seeds, and herbs in pots. These allowances are justified in order to facilitate early growing stages of plants and in instances for which “no risk exists that the consumer is misled regarding the production method.”

Some EU countries, such as Denmark, Sweden and Finland, have been allowing the use of “demarcated beds in greenhouses” as organic, but in the agreement struck with Parliament those countries will be given 10 years phase-out the practice. An interim report is required to be produced on the status of those greenhouses within 5 years. Similar to the situation in the Nordic countries, some US organic certification agencies have been acting independently in the absence of regulations, certifying hydroponic operations and creating their own rules with respect to the organic soil requirement.  While some certifiers allow crops to be grown in an undefined “biodegradable substrate,” others do not. This has created confusion in the marketplace and angered many farmers and consumers who note that the text in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) specifically states that farmers shall “foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” It makes clear that soil health management is central to organic systems of production as evidenced by the detailed expectations of organic farmers in their annual organic crop and animal production system plan.

Other organic management practices strengthened by the new EU regulations include increasing data collection on organic seed and organic animal availability. The allowed use of conventional seeds and animals in organic production is scheduled to terminate by 2035, but that date could change depending upon the progress made. Mixed organic and conventional production by the same farmer will still be allowed, provided that the two systems of production are clearly delineated. To make it easier for small farmers to enter into organic farming, a group certification will be allowed. This issue has been raise on several occasions in the U.S. but has been rejected to date.

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

Sources:  News European Parliament; Food Navigator; Cornucopia

(Beyond Pesticides, April 26, 2018) Each year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes its Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™. The guide includes the “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15” lists of conventionally grown produce items that, respectively, are the most heavily tainted by toxic pesticide residue, and by contrast, have little if any residue. EWG analyzes testing conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Pesticide Data Program to arrive at its annual assessment. Its report for 2018 found that nearly 70% of conventional produce is contaminated with residue and/or breakdown byproducts of one or more of the 230 pesticides that USDA evaluated.

The top items on the 2018 Dirty Dozen list include strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples, and grapes. One-third of all the strawberry samples harbored 10 or more pesticides, and one sample showed residue of 22 different compounds. Pesticide contamination was found in 97% of spinach samples, 94% of nectarines, 90% of apples, 96% of grapes, and 99% of peaches. Topping the 2018 Clean 15 list of the least-toxic conventionally grown produce items are avocados (99+% of samples tested negative for pesticides), sweet corn (98+%), pineapples (90%), onions (90+%), and cabbage (86%). EWG again this year added hot peppers as the 13^th item on its Dirty “Dozen” list. Although they do not meet EWG’s standard ranking criteria, nearly 75% were contaminated, and often, with residues of neurotoxic insecticides.

Conventionally grown crops are subject to chemically intensive practices, including the use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and various petrochemical inputs, such as synthetic “fertilizers.” These stand in contrast to organic practices, which Beyond Pesticides endorses as the only safe and sustainable approach to agriculture. The risks of pesticide residues to human health are not the only reasons to go organic; these compounds also represent threats to farmers and farmworkers, and to our soil, water, air, biodiversity, pollinators, and rural communities. Beyond Pesticides’ database, Eating with a Conscience, evaluates impacts — on the environment and on farmworkers — of the chemicals used, domestically and internationally, on major food crops.

The top-level takeaway from the EWG report is that a huge portion of the U.S.population is necessarily consuming a virtual smorgasbord of pesticides every day, and — as Beyond Pesticides recommends — would do well to shift its consumption habits to organic. An apparent irony is that a healthful diet includes plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, yet much of the produce people consume likely comes laced with hazards associated with those pesticides. Those health risks include asthma, autism and learning disabilities, birth defects and reproductive dysfunction, diabetes, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, and several types of cancer.

The EWG 2018 report references a recent study that found lower fertility rates associated with women’s consumption of high-pesticide produce. (Study subjects were women undergoing infertility treatment with assisted reproductive technology.) Other emerging evidence points to reduced semen quality associated with dietary exposures through consumption of food with residues. In 2012, The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a report that said that “children have ‘unique susceptibilities to [pesticide residues’] potential toxicity.’ The organization cited research that linked pesticide exposures in early life to pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems.” Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with EWG, notes that “avoiding pesticides is especially important when women are pregnant [or] planning to get pregnant, or parents are feeding kids.”

It should be noted that there is no surefire way to wash pesticide residue from produce. Not only does produce have pores through which pesticides can be ingested into the body of the vegetable or fruit, but also, some pesticides are designed to penetrate into the interior tissues, making washing irrelevant.

For consumers, buying and eating organic is the obvious way to avoid the risks associated with consumption of chemical residues on and in food. Indeed, a 2015 study out of the University of Washington found that “people who report they often or always buy organic produce had significantly lower quantities of organophosphate insecticides in their urine samples. This was true even though they reported eating 70 percent more servings of fruits and vegetables per day than adults who reported they rarely or never purchase organic produce.”

The refrain that organic food is expensive belies the complexity and relative inscrutability of the dominant food system. Beyond Pesticides’ article, “The Real Story on the Affordability of Organic Food,” lays out the hidden costs and risks of conventional, chemical-intensive agriculture, and offers helpful ideas on eating organic on a budget. The Clean 15 can be a help in this regard, but the list doesn’t tell the whole story. Items on it exhibit minimal residues, but those “cleaner” food commodities may be grown with pesticides that can contaminate aquifers and waterways, persist in soil, compromise the health of farmworkers and local communities, and kill wildlife — all while not showing up at detectable levels on our food. Check out the Eating with a Conscience database to see, for example, what chemicals are used on avocados, sweet corn, and onions.

Beyond Pesticides advocates strongly for organics. USDA’s organic certification is the only system of food labeling that is subject to independent public review and oversight. Organic certification ensures that food is produced using practices rooted in soil biology, biodiversity, and plant health — eliminating toxic chemicals, commonly used in the production and processing of food, that harm everything but the manufacturers’ bottom lines. Shifting to organics has benefits far beyond human health: the choices people make about what they buy and consume have direct impacts on the health of those who grow and harvest food, and on the health of the environment.

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

Sources: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews and http://www.ehn.org/worst-foods-for-pesticides-2558353116.html

(Beyond Pesticides, April 25, 2018)  A class-action lawsuit against two manufacturers of neonicotinoid insecticides is moving ahead in Quebec, Canada after an appeal to block the case by the Canadian government and the chemical companies, Bayer and Syngenta, was dismissed. In February 2018, the case, brought by a beekeeper, was allowed to proceed to trial by the Quebec Superior Court.

Quebec queen bee breeder, Steve Martineau, conducted tests on water and his dead and dying bees and found traces of neonicotinoids. His suit alleges that Bayer and Syngenta were negligent in the manufacture and sale of neonicotinoids in Quebec, and are responsible for damages that he and other class members suffered under Article 1457 of the Quebec Civil Code. Bayer and Syngenta challenged the application on a number of grounds including the assumption that they had manufactured the neonicotinoids which killed Martineau’s bees. The class in this case was authorized for all persons in Quebec who own or owned bees in the affected area since 2006. Mr. Martineau estimates he has lost about $20,000 a year to present due to the effects of neonicotinoids on his bee population (Martineau v. Bayer CropScience Inc. CALN/2018-007)

“We’re suing on behalf of Quebec beekeepers whose bees were non-productive or killed,” Mr. Martineau’s lawyer, Samy Elnemr said. In addition to the Quebec class-action suit, a Canada-wide lawsuit against neonicotinoid manufacturers is also being prepared to be filed and will be put before the courts soon.

On February 19, 2018, the provincial government introduced new restrictions on pesticides considered harmful to honey bees, including neonicotinoids. Under the changes, farmers will have to get permission from a certified agronomist before using certain pesticides on crops.  The restricted pesticides include three types of neonicotinoids, as well as chlorpyrifos and atrazine, which has been banned in Europe for more than a decade. To ensure the implementation of these new regulations goes smoothly, the Environment Ministry will establish a monitoring committee to oversee the process. The province has already allocated $14 million over five years to assist farmers in reducing pesticide risks and adapting to the new measures. Advocates say the new rules represent a compromise. These chemicals may continue to be used, but inserting agronomic experts with an eye for both the economic and health concerns surrounding the use of highly toxic pesticides into the process may be a strategy to significantly reduce pesticide use. The good news is that by also improving recordkeeping, Quebec’s strategy can be closely evaluated to ensure the approval process is not simply a rubber stamp for pesticide use.

Numerous scientific studies implicate neonicotinoid pesticides as key contributors to the global decline of pollinator populations. Research on neonicotinoids has been consistent in linking their use to reduced learning in bees, as well as other impacts, such as those on colony size, and reproductive success. Studies looking at effects on birds reports that songbirds exposed to widely used insecticides, like neonicotinoids, fail to properly orient themselves for migration, the first such study that adds weight to arguments that pesticides are a likely cause in the decline of migratory bird populations.  U.S. beekeepers lost an unsustainable 33% of their hives between 2016 and 2017.

Neonicotinoids are also detected regularly in the nation’s waterways at concentrations that exceed acute and chronic toxicity values for sensitive organisms. A new report from the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) finds neonicotinoid contamination of the Great Lakes that threatens aquatic life.The most recent aquatic assessment for imidacloprid finds that imidacloprid threatens the health of U.S. waterways with significant risks to aquatic insects and cascading effects on aquatic food webs. As a result of risks to aquatic organisms, the Canadian pesticide regulatory agency has recommended banning imidacloprid, a decision on which has been delayed. In Europe, a recent survey finds that streams across the United Kingdom (UK) are contaminated with neonicotinoids. The European Commission met on December 12 and 13, 2017 to decide on a proposal to extend the 2013 neonicotinoid ban to all outdoor crops, but this decision was delayed. The issue is expected to be on the agenda again in 2018.

Help push EPA to take substantive action on neonicotinoids by urging your Representative to support the Saving America’s Pollinators Act. With managed honey bee losses remaining at unsustainable levels and many wild pollinators at risk of extinction (1, 2, 3), it’s time, for the future of food and our environment, for the U.S. to finally protect pollinators.

Source: CBC Radio Canada

(Beyond Pesticides, April, 24, 2018) On April 19, 2018, an Appellate Court in California sided with the State of California, affirming that Monsanto’s glyphosate can be listed as a probable carcinogen under the state’s Proposition 65 and rejecting Monsanto’s challenge to law. The state will not only move ahead with warning labels on products that contain glyphosate but also prohibit discharge of the pesticide into public waterways.

Monsanto’s lawsuit challenged the 2015 decision by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to list glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, under California’s Proposition 65. Proposition 65 requires notification and labeling of all chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and prohibits their discharge into drinking waters of the state.

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.”  Under the Labor Code listing mechanism of Proposition 65, substances identified by IARC must be listed in the state of California as known to cause cancer. This listing requires warning labels on products and the listed substances are subject to limits on discharges into surface waters. California added glyphosate to the list of cancer-causing chemicals in July 2017 but was challenged by Monsanto and its allies for carrying out the state’s law.

Monsanto’s claim that the state was illegally delegating lawmaking powers to an unaccountable foreign agency, IARC. In rejecting that argument, the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno preserved California’s authority to list glyphosate as a possible carcinogen.  Presiding Justice Brad Hill said in the court’s 3-0 ruling that the U.S. and 24 other nations belong to a council that governs the agency. “[The agency’s] reputation and authority on the world stage — and relatedly its funding — is dependent, in part, on its work being accepted as scientifically sound,” Justice Hill said. He followed that the state, through its voters, had exercised lawmaking powers to require warnings on potentially dangerous products, and legally left factual decisions to an internationally supervised body.

“All California consumers have the right to know that glyphosate is considered a probable carcinogen, and Proposition 65 ensures that the public obtains that knowledge,” said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director at Center for Food Safety that intervened in the case. “We are pleased that the California Appellate Court prevented Monsanto’s attempt to keep the public in the dark about potential hazards from their products.”

Monsanto has been hard at work trying to undermine findings that show its flagship product, glyphosate, is anything other than “safe.” However, its attempts to unduly influence and undermine scientific research and government review of its product has been disclosed widely in the press. This has prompted the European Parliament to set up a special committee to look into the European Union’s (EU) authorization procedure for pesticides, in light of their recent controversial review of glyphosate. It was reported that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) copied dozens of pages from a Monsanto study in reaching its conclusion that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” EFSA’s recommendation was supposed to provide an independent analysis for EU member states when deciding to renew the chemical. Last year, the European Parliament banned Monsanto lobbyists from committee meetings and digital resources, as well as prohibiting Monsanto lobbyists from meeting with any Member of the European Parliament. This was an attempt to limit Monsanto’s influence on the EU review process amid mounting public pressure.

In December 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declared that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic, conflicting with IARC’s 2015 classification. Some charge that EPA’s assessment relied heavily on industry studies to arrive at its conclusion, and ignored its own guidelines for assessing cancer risks. EPA now has a public comment period open for its human health and ecological assessment which conclude that the agency is not considered with glyphosate exposures, despite evidence to the contrary warranting a precautionary stance on the chemical’s continued use.

Action is needed to protect communities from glyphosate. Work to pass policies that restrict not only glyphosate but the entire range of toxic synthetic pesticides registered by EPA. Beyond Pesticides has resources to help you get started, including an organizing guide, model policy, and list of less toxic, organic compatible products. For more information on IARC’s glyphosate cancer classification and the IARC review process, see Beyond Pesticides’ article in our journal Pesticides and You.

Source: Center for Food Safety; SF Gate

(Beyond Pesticides, April 23, 2018) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting comments on its human health and environmental risk assessments of glyphosate (sold as Roundup™, Rodeo™, and many other products) until April 30. Evidence is mounting that glyphosate products cause cancer and many other human health and environmental problems.

Sign the petition asking EPA to ban glyphosate.

Despite the prevalent myth that this widely used herbicide is harmless, glyphosate is associated with a wide range of illnesses, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, genetic damage, liver and kidney damage, and endocrine disruption, as well as environmental damage, including water contamination and harm to amphibians. Researchers have also determined that the “inert” ingredients in glyphosate products, especially polyethoxylated tallow amine or POEA –a surfactant commonly used in glyphosate and other herbicidal products— are even more toxic than glyphosate itself. Monsanto, manufacturer of glyphosate, formulates many products (such as Roundup™ and Rodeo™) and markets formulations exclusively used on genetically engineered (GE) crops. Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, due in large part to the increased cultivation of GE crops that are tolerant of the herbicide.

This petition summarizes the reasons glyphosate should be banned. More information can be found in Beyond Pesticides’ comments.

Sign the petition asking EPA to ban glyphosate.

For even greater effectiveness, use the information in this petition and Beyond Pesticides’ comments to submit your own comments at Regulations.gov.

Letter/Petition

Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361

EPA must cancel registrations of products containing glyphosate, based on information in the agency’s risk assessments and other available research. Glyphosate poses unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment, as outlined below and explained in greater detail in comments submitted by Beyond Pesticides.

Despite the prevalent myth it is harmless, glyphosate is associated with a wide range of illnesses, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, genetic damage, liver and kidney damage, and endocrine disruption, as well as environmental damage, including water contamination and harm to amphibians. Researchers have also determined that the “inert” ingredients in glyphosate products, especially polyethoxylated tallow amine or POEA –a surfactant commonly used in glyphosate and other herbicidal products— are even more toxic than glyphosate itself. Monsanto, manufacturer of glyphosate, formulates many products (such as Roundup™ and Rodeo™) and markets formulations exclusively used on genetically engineered (GE) crops. Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world, due in large part to the increased cultivation of GE crops that are tolerant of the herbicide.

Exposure to glyphosate has been increasing steadily. As a result of its widespread use, glyphosate residues are detected in tissues and excretions of farm animals, as well as human urine. Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready® soybeans, which are genetically engineered to be herbicide-tolerant, and exhibit a nutritional profile different from that of organic and non-GE soybeans.

EPA must take a precautionary approach when considering continued and expanded uses. Although EPA’s assessment focuses only on the active ingredient, glyphosate, EPA must investigate the totality of glyphosate formulations and their potential for adverse impacts, which have the most relevance to human and environmental health. Glyphosate formulations are more toxic than the active ingredient alone, a fact recognized by EPA in its ecological assessment, which includes formulated glyphosate products in its review.

Although EPA considers glyphosate to be “of relatively low oral and dermal acute toxicity,” some glyphosate products are of higher acute toxicity, primarily due to eye and/or skin irritation. Symptoms following exposure to glyphosate formulations include: swollen eyes, face, and/or joints; facial numbness; burning and/or itching skin; blisters; rapid heart rate; elevated blood pressure; chest pains, congestion; coughing; headache; and nausea. In developmental toxicity studies using pregnant rats and rabbits, glyphosate caused treatment-related effects in high-dose groups, including diarrhea, decreased body weight gain, nasal discharge, and death.

As documented by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2015, glyphosate causes cancer. IARC classifies glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen, which means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. As of July 7, 2017, glyphosate is listed as a cancer-causing chemical under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). This requires that cancer warning labels be placed on end-use glyphosate products in California. Glyphosate has been specifically linked to non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

Glyphosate causes DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Glyphosate and its formulated products adversely affect embryonic, placental, and umbilical cord cells, affect fetal development, and increase the risk for spontaneous abortion. Chronic, ultra-low-dose exposure to glyphosate in drinking water results in adverse impacts on the health of liver and kidneys. Glyphosate is considered to be an endocrine disruptor. It can cause changes to DNA function, resulting in the onset of chronic disease.

Glyphosate disrupts a crucial pathway for manufacturing aromatic amino acids in plants and bacteria. It has been patented as an antibiotic. The destruction of bacteria in the human gut is a major contributor to disease, and the destruction of soil microbiota leads to unhealthy agricultural systems with increasing dependence on agricultural chemicals. Disturbing the microbiota contributes to a whole host of “21^st 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 closely correlated with the use of glyphosate herbicides, and glyphosate exposure can produce inflammation that is at the root of these diseases. Glyphosate appears to have more negative impacts on beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to flourish. Its use –like use of all antibiotics— increases antibiotic resistance.

Glyphosate has the potential to contaminate surface waters and is not broken down readily by water or sunlight. Surveys detect glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in surface water, as well as in rain, in soil and sediment samples, in ditches and drains, and in wastewater treatment plants.

Residues of glyphosate may persist in soils and cause harmful changes, potentially reducing crop yields. Concerns for soil health from long-term glyphosate use include reduction of nutrient availability for plants and organisms; disruption of organism diversity, especially in the areas around plant roots; reductions of beneficial soil bacteria; increases in plant root pathogens; disturbed earthworm activity; reduced bacterial nitrogen fixation; and compromised growth and reproduction in some soil and aquatic organisms.

Glyphosate use directly impacts a variety of non-target animals, including insects, earthworms, amphibians, and fish, and indirectly impacts birds and small mammals.Please cancel the registrations of glyphosate products.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 20, 2018) There is an extraordinary attack on local community rights to protect people and the environment from pesticides in the Republican Farm Bill, passed by the Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 18 on a straight party line vote. The language inserted in the Farm Bill amends the federal pesticide law with a provision that prohibits local governments from restricting pesticide use on private property within their jurisdictions. Local laws in two states, Maine and Maryland, will be overturned with final passage of this law in the U.S. House and Senate. In those 43 states that forbid local pesticide laws by state law, future reconsideration of this prohibition, pushed by the chemical and pest management industry, will be foreclosed. Local laws protecting the environment and public health have historically emerged out of local governments, with laws related to recycling, smoking, pet waste, building codes, and zoning.

The fight to defend the authority of local governments to protect people and the environment has been ongoing for decades, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. The Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, the Court ruled that federal pesticide law does not prohibit, or preempt, local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government. According to Mortier, however, states do retain authority to take away local control. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called the Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the Coalition’s wording.

Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to preempt local authority in states that do not prohibit local action on pesticides, most recently in Maine. An industry-backed attempt to enact pesticide preemption in the state of Maine failed after bill LD 1853 was voted down in March. The bill resembled a similar bill that failed in the same legislative committee in 2017. Similarly, in Maryland, the chemical industry was unsuccessful in its attempts in the mid-1990s to pass legislation seeking explicit preemption in Maryland. With an ever increasing number of communities stepping up to protect their residents and unique local environment from pesticide poisoning and contamination, the repeated introduction of preemption legislation means that health advocates and forward-thinking communities must continue to remain vigilant, and ready to fight to maintain their right to home rule. Having failed to curtail local action and the growing number of communities deciding to act, the chemical industry is flexing its muscle with a sneak attack in a Congress friendly to its position.

Contact your member of Congress, and let them know that legislation that takes away local authority to restrict pesticides throughout local jurisdictions is undemocratic and dangerous to the protection of people and the environment. Tell your elected officials (see suggested language below) that Subtitle B, Section (b) Uniform Regulation of Pesticides, (3) Condition on More Restrictive Regulation must be removed from the 2018 Farm Bill, H.R. 2. To find links, go to the contact pages for your U.S. Representative, click here, and for your U.S. Senators, click here.

Suggested Language

Letter to Members of U.S. House of Representatives and Senate

Language in the Farm Bill amends federal pesticide law to prohibit local governments from restricting pesticide use on private property within their jurisdictions. However, the rights of local governmental jurisdictions under existing pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), has been left to the states since the law’s adoption. In fact, local laws protecting the environment and public health have historically emerged out of local governments, with laws related to recycling, smoking, pet waste, building codes, and zoning.

The rights of local governments to protect people and the environment was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. The Court specifically upheld the authority of local governments to restrict pesticides throughout their jurisdictions under federal pesticide law. In Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, the Court ruled that FIFRA does not prohibit, or preempt, local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government. According to Mortier, however, states may restrict local control as a matter of state authority.

Please make sure that the provision preempting local authority, included in the House Agriculture Committee passed Farm Bill, does not become law. Please remove this language: Subtitle B, Section (b) Uniform Regulation of Pesticides,”(3) CONDITION ON MORE RESTRICTIVE REGULATION.—Section 24(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘A State may’’ and inserting ‘‘A State, but not a political subdivision of a State, may.’’

Please let me know your position on this provision, destructive to the democratic decision making process that protects health and the environment.

Sincerely,

[Name]

Legislation that passed the Agriculture Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on April 18, 2019:

H.R. 2 –Farm Bill 2018

Subtitle B—Regulatory Reform PART I—STATE LEAD AGENCIES UNDER FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT SEC. 9101. RECOGNITION AND ROLE OF STATE LEAD AGENCIES.

(b) UNIFORM REGULATION OF PESTICIDES.—

. . .

(2) AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAINUNIFORM REGULATIONS.—Section 23(a)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136u(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘enforcement of this Act,’’ the following: ‘‘to authorize the State or Indian tribe to establish and maintain uniform regulation of pesticides within the State or for the Indian tribe,’’.

(3) CONDITION ON MORE RESTRICTIVE REGULATION.—Section 24(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136v(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘A State may’’ and inserting ‘‘A State, but not a political subdivision of a State, may.’’

Amends:

7 U.S. Code § 136v [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)]- Authority of States

(a) In general

A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, April 19, 2018) With the passage yesterday of the Republican amendments to the 2018 Farm Bill, H.R. 2, in the U.S. House of Representatives’ Agriculture Committee, Congress has launched a full-frontal attack on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and required pesticide reviews to protect endangered species. According to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the bill, on a party-line vote, will “completely exempt the use of pesticides from ESA, effectively dooming hundreds of endangered species to extinction and making it legal to kill any endangered species with a pesticide at almost any time.” The legislation is sponsored by House Agriculture Committee Chairman U.S. Representative Mike Conaway (R-Texas).

The Farm Bill’s ESA provision will do away with EPA’s legally-mandated scientific consultations with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Interior Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the two main agencies charged with government oversight of species protection. If Congress fails to eliminate this undesirable provision from the Farm Bill, it is viewed as a tragic end to a success story, which began with the enactment of ESA in 1973. The law effectively prevented the extinction of 99 percent of species under its jurisdiction over the past 45 years. Few federal laws have engendered such tangible success with such widespread societal benefits and for so long, affording protections to more than 1,400 species, many of which are on the pathway to recovery.

Attacks on ESA have been a regular occurrence since the inauguration of the 115^th United States Congress on January 3, 2017. This Congress already has seen at least 63 “legislative attacks seeking to strip federal protections from specific species or undercutting the Endangered Species Act,” according to CBD.  Although ESA attacks have occurred at an accelerated rate during this session of Congress, the organization has documented a total of 164 bills introduced into Congress which have sought to “dismantle critical species protections” between 2010 and 2015. This latest rash of attacks is occurring at a feverish pace, hidden in proposed legislation such as a recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Bill which would exempt the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from ESA requirements. Federal wildlife experts have observed that some of FEMA’s activities are already threatening a variety of salmon species and Puget Sound killer whales with extinction. The exemption of FEMA activities from ESA scientific reviews would only make matters worse.

While Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee claim that the bill adds “common sense reforms” to an “onerous and conflicting” ESA process that needs to be “modernized,” opponents of the Farm Bill provision label it a “poison pill.” Committee Chair, K. Michael Conaway, argues that despite four plus decades of reviewing species-by-species, EPA does not have the resources to continue to do so.  He wants to “protect crops” with pesticides and “figure a way to protect species.” But, as Beyond Pesticides has repeatedly demonstrated in its Daily News, the two are not compatible.

The organophosphate insecticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon have put the continued existence of endangered species and their critical habitats at risk, according to a  December 2017 Biological Opinion of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). That Opinion states that EPA’s proposed registration of pesticides containing any one of these three chemicals is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 25 to 38 of the 77 listed species and adversely modify 18 to 50 of the 50 designated critical habitats.

Additionally, EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, halted the near-complete process of prohibiting all uses of the notoriously noxious, neurotoxic chlorpyrifos, which has been documented to harm farmworkers and cause developmental impairments to children in utero. While a limited, nationwide ban already exists for residential use of chlorpyrifos, Hawaii is considering a permanent prohibition for all uses.

Over 60 agriculture groups signed a letter in January telling House Agriculture Committee leaders that the current ESA review and permitting process is “redundant” and “provides no environmental benefit, but instead imposes additional costs on farms and businesses.” The opposing side vehemently disagrees and attributes the law’s success to its science-driven determinations that defy partisan politics. In a letter to the National Governors’ Association from over three hundred environmental, community health, and conservation groups, the signers argue that “the Act has been so successful in large part because it requires that science and not short-term political and economic concerns guide decisions about whether species are at risk and how they should be protected and recovered.”

According CBD experts, “No law has been more important in preventing the extinction of wildlife, including bald eagles, gray whales and the peregrine falcon.” Due to the multiple protections afforded by ESA, many species are enroute to recovery. In addition, essential habitats comprising millions of acres of forests, beaches, and wetlands also have been protected.

Jordan Giaconia, Sierra Club’s federal policy associate for defense says that the ramifications of the Farm Bill proposal are far reaching and views this pesticide-first approach to the Farm Bill as an “unprecedented attack on the Endangered Species Act.” He laments that “it’s unfortunately not surprising. It falls in line with Scott Pruitt’s efforts to undermine scientifically based environmental protections.”

On the heels of the recent Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Report (IPBES), which warns of the perils of an impending biodiversity crisis if international governments do not change course, as previously reported by Beyond Pesticides, it would be unconscionable for Congress to act with such a blatant disregard for future generations and the ecosystems that support their survival.  The IPBES Report unearths the alarming plight faced by two-fifths of the world’s population due to of the worsening of land degradation, declining species biodiversity, and the intensification of climate change. It documents how heightened pesticide use has adversely affected species diversity of both target and non-target species and has negatively impacted food and water security. This timely report further reinforces the need to protect threatened and endangered species, their habitats, and the ESA.

Write or call your House Congressional Representative and urge her/him to contest the provision in the Farm Bill that would decimate the ESA’s scientific review of pesticide impacts and severely weaken protections for endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

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

Sources:  Roll Call; Endangered Species Coalition

(Beyond Pesticides, April 18, 2018) A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Betrayal at the USDA, concludes that a myriad of personnel and policy decisions by Trump administration Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, in his first year, are harming the public. Enacted through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), these decisions have weakened public safety and health protections, ignored science, and advantaged agribusiness interests over those of the public, farmers, and rural communities.

Given the mission of USDA — to provide “leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management” — the U.S. population would understandably expect that the agency would make good on that mission. People might assume the agency would employ sound science in promoting innovative, sustainable agricultural practices, and in helping maintain a domestic food system that ensures a safe and healthful food supply, supports farmers’ success, and protects the natural resources on which both of those depend. UCS concludes that, in the Trump era, people would be wrong.

USDA has considerable, albeit not-always-obvious, impact on people’s everyday lives. As the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) notes, “The agency’s programs and policies help shape farmers’ decisions about what to grow and how to grow it; the cost, availability, and safety of the food we all eat; the quality of the nation’s soil and water resources; and the social and economic well-being of our communities — especially rural communities.” In addition, USDA has typically invested billions of dollars annually on agriculture and food research, representing significant support for the research science community and the discoveries that emerge from this work, as well as for a growing knowledge base to inform decision making and public policy.

Early concerns expressed by the science and advocacy sectors — about Mr. Perdue’s ethical lapses, coziness with big industry, and apparent interest in weakening evidence-based public protections — are bearing out. As he did as governor of Georgia for eight years, Secretary Perdue has made liberal use of industry contacts, former business associates, and Big Ag lobbyists as appointees to leadership position in government; skills, relevant experience and education, and ethics do not seem to be part of the vetting.

For example, to advise USDA on federal dietary guidelines, Mr. Perdue hired Kailee Tkacz, an ex-lobbyist for both corn refiners and snack (aka junk) food trade groups. He acquired an ethics waiver from the White House for the hire because she had lobbied Congress on related issues just three months earlier. UCS points out that Ms. Tkacz has no training in nutrition, science, or public health.

Additional ethics waivers, announced in March 2018, were issued by White House counsel Don McGahn for other trade group lobbyists to work for the USDA. One of those was for Maggie Lyons, former lobbyist for the National Grocers Association who was hired, as a senior advisor and chief of staff to the administrator of the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, to advise Secretary Perdue and USDA officials on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program — policies on which she had lobbied just months earlier. Ms. Lyons, likewise, has no background in science or nutrition, but did study “corporate communications” in college.

Secretary Perdue also and infamously tried to appoint Sam Clovis, the Trump campaign national co-chair, and talk radio host, to be USDA’s undersecretary for research, education, and economics. Unencumbered by any of the scientific experience or training required by law for the position — never mind his predilection for racist and offensive diatribe, and for conspiracy theories — Mr. Clovis eventually, after vigorous public outcry, withdrew his name from nomination for the position. Yet, he is still at USDA as a senior advisor.

The Trump administration certainly set the stage for such recklessness and disregard for established norms and common sense. On Inauguration Day itself, the transition team had somehow vetted and sent to USDA headquarters 30+ new hires. Politico’s Jenny Hopkinson later reported, “Into USDA jobs, some of which paid nearly $80,000 a year, the Trump team had inserted a long-haul truck driver, a clerk at AT&T, a gas-company meter reader, a country-club cabana attendant, a Republican National Committee intern, and the owner of a scented-candle company, with skills like ‘pleasant demeanor’ listed on their résumés. ‘In many cases [the new appointees] demonstrated little to no experience with federal policy, let alone deep roots in agriculture.’ . . . What these people had in common, she pointed out, was loyalty to Donald Trump.”

Part of USDA’s responsibility is to use scientific evidence to maintain the safety of the food system, protect workers in the sector, improve children’s nutrition, and tackle food insecurity. In seeming contravention of those charges stand some of Mr. Perdue’s policy decisions. USDA attacked the science used by the World Health Organization in its guidelines on antibiotic overuse in livestock. In March 2018, it withdrew organic animal welfare regulations establishing standards and metrics for the health and welfare of organic livestock and poultry — another in a series of actions that compromise organic integrity in service to the needs of large organic producers. USDA also joined in with agribusiness interests, in the run-up to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s decision to reverse the Obama-era ban on the neurotoxic pesticide chlorpyrifos, to argue against the ban. The 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act established nutrition standards for school meals that helped arrest the spiking rate of childhood obesity; Mr. Perdue’s USDA rolled back those standards to allow fewer whole grains, more sodium, and milk with added sugar.

Secretary Perdue’s plans to reorganize USDA are further testament to his attitudes toward science, agribusiness, and the mission of the agency. In eliminating the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration and withering some of its rules, he has made it easier for large meat processors to exploit small livestock and poultry farmers. Further, he supported the administration’s budget proposal for 2019, which would slice USDA funding by 25% and kneecap programs, such as the Economic Research Service and the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, that use science to help farmers and rural communities. Mr. Perdue also supported the recent “tax bill,” in spite of the fact that its provisions are projected primarily to help the top 1% of farmers and decrease agricultural productivity.

Beyond Pesticides has identified the Trump administration’s pattern of sidelining science and prioritizing industrial interest in public policy and regulation across agencies; samples of that coverage: The Threat to Scientific Integrity at EPA, Trump Administration Bows to Chemical Industry, Increasing Pressure for Local Action, Assault on Science, and Where Has All the EPA Enforcement Gone? UCS also published a 2017 report on this pattern, Sidelining Science Since Day One.

The new UCS report, Betrayal at the USDA, sets out recommendations that include increased Congressional oversight of the USDA reorganization plan, hiring of a chief scientist with real scientific qualifications, creation of scientific evidence–based dietary guidelines, full funding for USDA’s research activities, and protection of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) policies based on evidence rather than ideology. Beyond Pesticides agrees, and continues to insist that science — and faithfulness to the public interest — have a critical and central role in informing public policy and governance, particularly in agencies such as USDA, EPA, HHS (Department of Health and Human Services), DOI (Department of the Interior), DOE (Department of Energy), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), and NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), among others.

Members of the public can stay current on important, related issues with our Daily News Blog and Pesticides and You journal; mobilize to support organizations, such as Beyond Pesticides, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and many others, that advocate for science-sound solutions, ethics, and transparency in governance; and contact members of Congress to insist that the federal government work for the public interest.

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

Source: https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/unhealthy-food-policy/betrayal-usda-2018#.Ws4mddPwZ0s

(Beyond Pesticides, April 17, 2018) In a case that appalled the nation, the U.S. Justice Department finally last week secured an indictment against an applicator who illegally applied a fumigant at a U.S. Virgin Island resort, causing devastating and long-term health effects to a family on vacation. Terminex has already been fined and paid a multi-million dollar settlement with the poisoned family. Jose Rivera, 59, was indicted last Thursday by a federal grand jury for violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). According to the indictment, Mr. Rivera illegally applied fumigants containing methyl bromide in multiple residential locations in the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the condominium resort complex in St. John, where a family of four fell seriously ill in March 2015, announced Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Wood of the Environment and Natural Resources Division and U.S. Attorney Gretchen C.F. Shappert for the District of the Virgin Islands.  

The indictment alleges that Mr. Rivera knowingly applied restricted-use fumigants at the Sirenusa resort in St. John for the purpose of exterminating household pests on or about Oct. 20, 2014, and on or about March 18, 2015.  The defendant was also charged with applying the restricted-use pesticide in eight residential units in St. Croix and one additional unit in St. Thomas between April 2013 and February 2015.  

In 1984, EPA banned the indoor use of methyl bromide products. The few remaining uses are severely restricted.  Pesticides containing methyl bromide in the U.S. are restricted-use due to their acute toxicity, meaning that they must only be applied by a certified applicator. Health effects of acute exposure to methyl bromide are serious and include central nervous system and respiratory system damage. Pesticides can be very toxic and it is critically important that they be used only as approved by EPA.

Earlier this year, TERMINIX LP and TERMINIX, USVI were sentenced to pay a total of $9.2 million in criminal fines and restitution. The companies were also ordered to perform community service following an investigation and guilty pleas to their use and application of illegal fumigants in multiple residential locations in the Virgin Islands.

The case was investigated by EPA Criminal Investigation Division, working cooperatively with the Virgins Islands government and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Senior Litigation Counsel Howard P. Stewart of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim L. Chisholm for the District of the Virgin Islands are prosecuting the case with the assistance of Patricia Hick, EPA Region II Regional Criminal Enforcement Counsel.

the Department reminds the public that, “An indictment is merely a formal charging document and is not evidence of guilt. Every defendant is presumed innocent until, and unless, proven guilty.”

For more information about EPA’s pesticide program and its requirements, visit www.epa.gov/pesticides/.

For more information on methyl bromide, visit www.epa.gov/region2/methyl-bromide.pdf.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice press release

(Beyond Pesticides, April 16, 2018) Ethics scandals pile up regarding Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s failure to do his job, leading to the inevitable conclusion that he must go.

Tell Congress and the President to Dump Pruitt.

On the ethics side, there are:

• A unique too-good-to-be-true housing deal at a rental owned by an industry lobbyist;
• High-priced first class airfare for Pruitt and his personal security detail;
• Questionable claims of a need for expensive personal security measures;
• Reassigning or demoting EPA employees who question him;
• Using “special hires” to bring on political appointees; and
• Failing to investigate civil rights complaints.

All of these ethics issues are in addition to Pruitt’s attacks on the environment he is charged with protecting:

• Reversing a ban on chlorpyrifos;
• Delaying rules designed to protect farmworker children;
• Eliminating from EPA advisory boards those scientists who have received EPA grants; and
• Attempting to slash EPA’s staff in half.

Tell Congress and the President to dump Pruitt. [Link to anchor in action page; in email link to action page.]

Letter to Congress (Reps and Senators) and the President:

Please tell President Trump to fire Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. His ethical choices reflect poorly on the administration and the country. They include:

• A unique too-good-to-be-true housing deal at a rental owned by an industry lobbyist;
• High-priced first class airfare for Pruitt and his personal security detail;
• Questionable claims of a need for expensive personal security measures;
• Reassigning or demoting EPA employees who question him;
• Using “special hires” to bring on political appointees; and
• Failing to investigate civil rights complaints.

Furthermore, he is failing to do his job, attacking rather than protecting the environment through actions like:

• Reversing a ban on chlorpyrifos;
• Delaying rules designed to protect farmworker children;
• Eliminating from EPA advisory boards those scientists who have received EPA grants; and
• Attempting to slash EPA’s staff in half.

Tell Congress and the President to Dump Pruitt.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 13, 2018) Hawaii is poised to become the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of pesticides containing the developmental neurotoxicant, chlorpyrifos. SB3095, passed unanimously by the State House of Representatives this week, prohibits the application of restricted use pesticides (RUPs) within 100 feet of schools when they are in session, and it requires commercial agricultural entities to regularly report their RUP use to the Department of Agriculture (DOA). In the absence of adequate federal procedures to protect communities from hazardous pesticide drift, this bill represents the culmination of efforts by the people of Hawaii to ban and restrict the most egregious pesticides and to increase the transparency regarding their use. As bill supporters rallied in the Capitol’s Rotunda this week, SB3095 was sent to the Senate. No date has yet been set for its consideration, but Senators who support the bill hope to secure the 13 votes needed to pass it and avoid further weakening of its provisions.

Beyond Pesticides has actively supported this and previous iterations of SB3095, arguing for the establishment of a much more protective one mile buffer zone between schools and RUP applications to safeguard school children where they learn. But, the final bill passed by the House, with its scant 100 foot buffer zone, represents a hard-fought compromise between community, environmental, and worker health advocates on one side, and chemical-intensive agriculture and chemical companies on the other. Additional key provisions in SB3095 include an increase in DOA funding for pesticide education and investigations, the deposition of money into a revolving fund from penalties and fines collected under the Hawaii Pesticide Law, and the creation of two new positions to aid in the law’s implementation. One undesirable provision remains in the bill, however – “DOA shall grant any person, upon request, a temporary permit allowing the use of pesticides containing chlorpyrifos through 12/31/2021.” This no-questions-asked, three-year, free-pass for chlorpyrifos users represents a bitter compromise that bill advocates had to swallow to ensure its passage. The provision does require public disclosure of the recipient of the permit allowing chlorpyrifos use.

As State House Representative Nadine Nakamura observed after the vote, “This bill attempts to find a middle ground to move forward.” Kaua’i community activist and environmental scientist, Fern Holland, views it as “making a step in the right direction toward providing tangible protections for public health and our precious environment.” She said that she would “like to see Hawaii be the first state in the nation to step forward and ban this chemical and make a real step forward in protecting our children.”

The ban on chlorpyrifos is a long time coming. Formulated by Dow Chemical Company and registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1965, the chlorinated organophosphate insecticide was first developed as human nerve gas during World War II. Like so many other peacetime uses of war time chemicals chlorpyrifos was subsequently adapted as a broad-spectrum insecticide because of its effectiveness in killing insects on contact. The accelerated population growth and urbanization that characterized the US in the1950s and 60s facilitated the rapid expansion of chlorpyrifos, making it one of the most widely applied organophosphate insecticides for US agricultural, residential, and commercial use.

According to data compiled by EPA, corn is the single largest agricultural market for chlorpyrifos in terms of total pounds applied of the active ingredient. Farmers also apply it on feed crops, fruit and nut trees, and on brussel sprouts, cranberries, broccoli, cauliflower, and other row crops. Non-agricultural applications include golf courses, green houses, utility poles, fence posts, in roach and ant bait stations, and as a mosquito adulticide.

Research leading up to Hawaii’s pesticide bill has shown that the use of chlorpyrifos is accompanied by tremendous human health costs. Children are uniquely susceptible to the adverse effects of chemical exposures because they drink more liquids, breathe more air, and consume more food per pound of body weight than adults. Studies have shown that children’s developing organs create early windows of significant vulnerability during which exposure to pesticides can cause great damage. In recognition of the hazards posed to children in particular from chlorpyrifos exposure, in 2000 EPA removed all residential uses from the market. But, the agency’s actions fell short of issuing an outright ban, despite strong, scientific evidence of harm and ongoing public outcry. Under the direction of EPA’s current Administrator, Scott Pruitt, the agency has delayed further action until 2022, calling for more study instead. Pruitt made this decision against the advice of his agency’s own scientists who argued that there is no safe method of chlorpyrifos use.

According to professor emeritus of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, Pediatrician, and Beyond Pesticides Board President, J. Routt Reigart, MD, “There is absolutely no reason to delay action for at least four years, other than providing Dow Chemical with permission to grow its market.” Chlorpyrifos is a known cholinesterase inhibitor which binds irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission- acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. “Studies document that exposure to low levels of chlorpyrifos during pregnancy can impair learning, change brain function, and alter thyroid levels of offspring into adulthood.” Columbia University researchers have found that chlorpyrifos in umbilical cord blood correlated to a decrease in psychomotor and mental development in three year old children. EPA scientists concur with this finding.  Virginia Rauh, Professor of Population and Family Health at the Columbia University Medical Center, has found that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos experience mental development delays and attention deficit/hyperactivity problems at three years of age. Studies of children exposed to chlorpyrifos have consistently demonstrated reduced birth weights, slowed cognitive development, and other neurodevelopmental problems.

In EPA’s revised risk assessment released in November of 2016, the agency confirmed that there is no safe use of chlorpyrifos. It also found that ubiquitous exposures to the insecticide exceeded safe levels in drinking water, food, air, homes, schools, and in agricultural communities. The assessment stated that pesticide drift, even at three hundred feet from the field’s edge, remains unsafe.  Workers who mix and apply chlorpyrifos are exposed to unsafe levels even when wearing maximum protective gear and with emission controls in place.

Yet, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, such as the research examined in EPA’s risk assessment, federal policy makers have failed the public by not swiftly banning chlorpyrifos, nationally, according to Leonardo Trasande, MD, physician and associate professor at New York University School of Medicine.  In his article, “When enough data are not enough to enact policy: the failure to ban chlorpyrifos,” Dr. Trasande reviews the available, scientific evidence on the public health threats posed by chlorpyrifos and the federal government’s slow response to take action. He concludes by stating the obvious – that the benefits of banning chlorpyrifos far outweigh the costs. Dr. Trasande calls upon the scientific community to speak up about the implications of their research and the imperative for government regulatory action to be taken to protect public health. While Dr. Trasande concedes that there will always be debate about the exact course of action and speed by which it should occur, he is emphatic that “Taking chlorpyrifos off the market will preserve our children’s intellectual potential. The chemical and agricultural industries will survive as they have survived the loss of many chemicals.”

Banning chlorpyrifos and passing SB3095 will put Hawaii at the forefront of statewide efforts to curb the adverse effects of noxious pesticide use. Other states, including New Jersey and Maryland, failed to pass bills proposed in their state legislatures. U.S. Senators from seven states have also introduced the Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017, which would outlaw chlorpyrifos and force EPA to review and consider banning other similar, highly toxic pesticides.

To express you concerns about the continued allowance of chlorpyrifos and other noxious pesticides, write or call your US Congressional Representative. Urge them to support the Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017 to safeguard children and communities from the unnecessary exposure to this neurotoxin. You can learn more about the fate, effects, and impacts of pesticides by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. It catalogs over 400 references in the epidemiologic peer-reviewed literature that link pesticide exposure, including chlorpyrifos, to a range of public health diseases. Also, consult Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix, which cites peer-reviewed scientific literature on the health effects of pesticides.

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

Sources:  Hawaii News Now

(Beyond Pesticides, April 12, 2018) The Justice Department will allow two notorious agrichemical corporations, Bayer and Monsanto, to merge, according to reports published earlier this week. Despite strong voices of opposition from grassroots advocates across the country, and investigations by state Attorneys General, the over $60 billion merger was approved after Bayer agreed to sell off select sectors to another competitor, BASF.  The merger will make Bayer the largest seed and pesticide company in the world. While lining the pockets of C-suite executives, farmers will be hurt by decreased competition and greater costs, which will ultimately affect consumer prices for food.

China, Brazil, Australia, and the European Union (EU) signed off on the deal prior to U.S. approval. As part of EU negotiations, Bayer agreed to divest $7 billion, selling off its soybean and cottonseed sectors, as well as its glufosinate herbicide division, which competes with Monsanto’s Roundup. Bayer also promised European regulators that it would not attempt to foist genetically engineered (GE) crops onto European consumers.  The U.S. Justice Department added additional requirements, noting that widespread use of GE crops in America meant there would be different considerations. According to reports, Bayer will need to sell off additional seed and seed treatment sectors and certain aspects of its digital field management business.

Although the Justice Department secured agreements on divestment, there were no deals made on how the new company will operate. In a number of sectors, including vegetable seeds, and GE row crops like alfalfa, canola, corn, soybean, and wheat, the new company, which many have dubbed “Baysanto,” will have an overwhelming majority of worldwide market share. Not only will this reduce the availability of traditional and non-GE seed varieties, it will permit the new company to increase costs to farmers, giving them few and likely no alternatives in many cases.

These problems are compounding themselves, as the Bayer-Monsanto merger is only the latest in a series of mega-mergers that have upended the agrichemical industry. Dow and DuPont merged in 2017, with plans to separate the new conglomerate into three different companies, one being a nearly $20 billion pure-play agriculture corporation that integrates the companies’ seed and pesticide sectors.  In 2016, the Chinese state-owned pesticide company ChemChina merged with Swiss chemical giant Syngenta, a deal valued at roughly $43 billion.

The “big six” often referenced by health and consumer advocates – Bayer, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, and BASF – has now shrunk to four. According to a poll taken earlier this year, 93% of farmers are concerned about the Bayer-Monsanto merger, with specific issues related to the new company’s ability to control farmer data, push products on farmers, and increase chemical dependency on farms.

The contracts that chemical companies make with conventional farmers can trap them within the company’s intellectual property (IP) ecosystem. For instance, farmers that purchase GE seeds must also assure the company that they will only use the company’s specific pesticides developed to accompany the GE seeds. As documented extensively by Beyond Pesticides, this system creates pesticide dependency whereby farmers must continue to buy the company’s seeds, and spray the company’s chemicals in order to control rising rates of pest and weed infestation. Now, without competition from other IP ecosystems, these companies can increase costs without risk that a farmer will jump to a competitor.

According to the Wall Street Journal, finalizing the Bayer-Monsanto merger will still require the okay from Canada and Mexico.

In fighting back against the global consolidation of agricultural markets, we might not always be able to prevent purchasing a food product produced by one of the big four, but we can work to shift consumer preferences towards sustainably produced food. Whenever possible, choose foods that have the USDA organic symbol, which doesn’t permit farmers to use toxic pesticides and GE seeds.

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

Source: The Wall Street Journal, Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, April 11, 2018) The request by shellfish growers in Washington State to apply the neonicotinoid insecticide, imidacloprid, on oyster and clams beds to control native burrowing shrimp was denied by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) after it determined “environmental harm from this neonicotinoid pesticide would be too great.” Concerned resident and environmental advocates have been opposed to the proposed use citing harms to aquatic life including fish habitat, and long-term ecological damage.

Shellfish growers from Willapa-Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association requested a permit from the state to use the imidacloprid on burrowing shrimp that the growers said impede traditional shellfish cultivation. They sought a state National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to apply imidacloprid to 500 acres of shellfish beds within Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, over a period of five years. The growers first applied for a permit in 2015 to treat 2,000 acres of tidelands, but after a strong public outcry, they withdrew the request. In 2016, they applied for a new permit to treat less acreage and Ecology published a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in 2017 on the potential impacts imidacloprid application would have to the bay. Now, Ecology, after thoroughly evaluating the request and public comments, including those submitted by Beyond Pesticides and its members, has determined that the environmental harm from this neonicotinoid pesticide would be too great, and is denying the request for a permit.

“We’ve been working with this community of growers for years to move away from chemical pesticides and find a safer alternative to control burrowing shrimp,” said Ecology Director Maia Bellon. “The science around imidacloprid is rapidly evolving and we can’t ignore it. New findings make it clear that this pesticide is simply too risky and harmful to be used in Washington’s waters and estuaries.”

According to Ecology, “The body of science is expanding because of national and international concerns surrounding the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and their environmental impacts. New research points to greater impacts in land and water ecosystems than previously known.” Reasons for the denial, documented in its formal report, include:

• Significant, unavoidable impacts to sediment quality and benthic invertebrates.
• Negative impacts to juvenile worms and crustaceans in areas treated with imidacloprid and nearby areas covered by incoming tides.
• Negative impacts to fish and birds caused by killing sources of food and disrupting the food web.
• Concern about non-lethal impacts to invertebrates in the water column and sediment.
• A risk of impacts from imidacloprid even at low concentrations.
• Increased uncertainty about long-term, non-lethal, and cumulative impacts.

According to the final decision, research and data reviewed by Ecology determined that the proposal to apply imidacloprid, “cannot meet the legal requirements of the Sediment Management Standards and Clean Water Act that protect sediment and water quality.” Ecology conservatively estimates for every one acre of tideland that is chemically treated, imidacloprid spreads out and impacts five acres. Even at low concentrations, it has significant impacts on the environment.

Neonicotinoids, like imidacloprid, are known for their action on non-target terrestrial insects, like the honey bee, but their neurotoxic activity in aquatic invertebrates like aquatic insects, crustaceans and worms also occurs when these chemicals get into waterways where these organisms reside. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent aquatic assessment of imidacloprid identified aquatic insects as the most vulnerable to imidacloprid exposures, and specifically found that foliar spray and a combination of other application methods, including on-the-ground applications, have “the greatest potential risks for aquatic invertebrates. . .”  EPA also acknowledges that “the potential exists for indirect risks to fish and aquatic-phase amphibians through reduction in their invertebrate prey-base.”

Studies investigating the impacts of neonicotinoids on aquatic organisms find that these pesticides can have devastating impacts on aquatic communities and on the higher trophic organisms that depend on these communities. Even at low, sublethal levels imidacloprid has the ability to reduce survival and growth in these organisms and can affect molting and larval development. The effects of imidacloprid on certain aquatic organisms are wide-ranging and include significant reduction in abundance, significant reduction in survival, reduced feeding, and behavioral changes. For more read Beyond Pesticides’ Poisoned Waterways.

Also important to note is that the burrowing shrimp have an important function in the ecosystem of Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. According to an analysis conducted by the Xerces Society, “The benefits from these species are likely to include ecosystem services such as substrate bioturbation, improving water quality and nutrient availability.” The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) finds that the native burrowing shrimp play an important role in the natural ecosystem, and voiced concern for the green sturgeon – a “species of concern” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which could potentially be impacted via reduced food sources in its designated critical habitat. Other species, like migratory birds that depend on shoreline aquatic invertebrates, can also be significantly affected. These trophic impacts are also extended to other aquatic predators in the Bay. These disruptions can have long-term cascading effects on food webs and habitats in or near aquatic environments. These government assessments and independent studies underscore the risks posed to aquatic ecosystems, which warrant federal restrictions on the use of imidacloprid.

Ecology’s decision is subject to a public comment period before it is final. The public may submit comments on this decision through May 14, 2018.

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

Source: Department of Ecology News Release

(Beyond Pesticides, April 10, 2018) Current strategies aimed at managing herbicide resistant weeds in agriculture are not effective and may exacerbate weed problems, according to research published earlier this year by scientists at University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom (UK). While the conventional wisdom in farming, promoted strongly by the chemical industry, is that resistance can be adequately managed by rotating the herbicides used, researchers did not find evidence to support this strategy. In an ode to Occam’s razor, a philosophical theory that hypotheses with the fewest assumptions may be the correct one, researchers found the best method to reduce weed resistance to herbicides was to reduce the overall use of herbicides.

Sheffield scientists focused their research on the occurrence of a common weed in the UK called black-grass. This weed was found to occur on 88% of the farmland tested in the study, and has recently been spreading into new areas it had never before colonized. Rob Freckleton, PhD, a population biologist and co-author of the study indicated to Science Daily, “The driver for this spread is evolved herbicide resistance: we found that weeds in fields with higher densities are more resistant to herbicides.”

Thus, the more abundant black-grass was found to be, the more researchers found resistant versions of the plant. The study investigated a range of factors that may be related to herbicide resistance, including management techniques that switch up herbicides used, or plant different crops. However, resistance was linked solely with how often and how much herbicide was used on a particular farm. Dr. Freckleton explains to Science Daily, “The results were simple: farms that used a greater volume of herbicide had more resistance. Beyond this we found little evidence for a role of any other management techniques: neither the diversity of chemicals used — for example whether farmers used a variety of herbicides or just one — or diversity of cropping mattered, despite both being advocated as methods to reduce the evolution of resistance.”

Scientists are confident in this determination because, over the course of the study, weed abundance did not change, despite farmers changing cultural practices. “Once resistance has evolved it does not seem to go away,” Dr. Freckleton said. “Two years later, fields with high densities still had high densities, despite farmers employing a suite of different management techniques.” As far as switching to another herbicide, researchers found that, once black-grass evolved resistance to one herbicide, it became much more likely to develop resistance to other herbicides.

The data implies that these ineffective measures may in fact be hurting farmer’s wallets. “We estimate that the economic costs of this are very high: the costs of weed management have doubled as a consequence of evolved resistance,” Dr. Freckleton notes.

Although weeds on farms using genetic engineering (GE) were not investigated as a result of a UK ban on growing such crops, the study is instructive for herbicide use on these farms in the U.S. Study after study has found that GE crops lead to increased use of toxic herbicides in attempts to control resistant weeds. And now, data finds the industry’s “solution” – namely, adding new, different herbicides to the mix, such as 2,4-D and dicamba, is not only an ineffective method that further endangers public health and neighboring cropland, it is likely going to cost farmers even more as it does nothing to address the fundamental issue causing resistance.

The good news is that the answer to this problem is as simple as understanding it: to limit herbicide resistance, reduce herbicide use. As Dr. Freckleton explains, “This is evolved resistance: when we manage natural systems in a selective manner, evolution is inevitable.” To manage resistance for the long term, organic agriculture has shown a viable path forward. Organic production reserves even the use of least-toxic herbicides to only when they are truly necessary, as a focus is placed on working with, rather than controlling natural systems.

For more information on herbicide resistance, see Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering program page.

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

Source: Science Daily, Nature Ecology and Evolution

(Beyond Pesticides, April 9, 2018) A new international study finds that the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources worldwide has reached critical proportions, causing biodiversity loss and land degradation that threaten the food and water security of an estimated 3.2 billion people. Congress must act for the U.S. to become a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity, joining the global community in working to develop and implement solutions to the biodiversity crisis.

Urge your U.S. Representatives and Senators to call for a vote in Congress to support the U.S. becoming a signatory to the UN Convention on Biodiversity.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report unearths the crisis faced by two-fifths of the world’s population due to the worsening of land degradation, declining species biodiversity, and the intensification of climate change. Though the report presents a bleak picture of how humans have substantially degraded the natural resources essential to survival, it holds up indigenous knowledge and land-use practices as potential models for how to use natural resources for human benefit, while still protecting biodiversity. However, the cultures that possess this knowledge are also in jeopardy. More than 60 percent of indigenous languages and cultures in the Americas are declining or dying.

In addition to detailing the root causes of biodiversity losses and ecosystem damages, the report also examines the social, cultural, political, and economic influences that can affect long-lasting change. Central to the extensively peer-reviewed report is a strong and often-repeated message that the window of opportunity for reversing land degradation and its impacts is closing. The report’s Chair, Robert Watson, PhD, warns that, “We must act to halt and reverse the unsustainable use of nature –or risk not only the future we want, but even the lives we currently lead.”

Biodiversity has been most strongly affected by agriculture, followed by forestry, infrastructure development, urban encroachment, and climate change. The resultant reduction and elimination in the suitability of habitats is the major cause of biodiversity losses. IPBES identified a nearly 40 percent decline in the average population size of wild terrestrial vertebrate species and an 81 percent decline in freshwater vertebrate species between 1970 and 2012. UN Administrator of the Development Program, Achim Steiner, argues that “Biodiversity and the ecosystem services it supports are not only the foundation for life on Earth, but critical to the livelihoods and well-being of people everywhere.”

Agriculture affects biodiversity through use of pesticides and fertilizers in chemical-intensive farming, and direct destruction of habitats in order to expand farmland. Concrete solutions offered in the report include: halting agriculture expansion into native habitats, improving soil health, conservation agriculture, shifts toward integrated crop, livestock, and forestry agriculture, more plant-based foods, and food waste reduction.

Chief among the cultural drivers of land degradation is the high-consumption lifestyles of people living in advanced industrialized countries, the growing consumption in emerging economies, and increasing population growth. All of these behaviors cause land degradation through natural resource and mineral extraction and by fueling agricultural and urban sprawl. Such activities have left less than 25% of the Earth’s surface free from degradation, mostly in deserts, tundra, mountains, and polar -regions.

Authors of the IPBES report have dubbed its findings “a wake-up call for all of us.” It will also undoubtedly serve that function for the 198 parties to the Convention on Biodiversity who will be attending the upcoming meeting in Egypt in November of this year. Aided by conclusions drawn from the report, agreements will be made on targets for improving biodiversity and strengthening compliance with the treaty. Although the U.S. is a party to the convention, it is not a signatory, which means that it is not legally bound by treaty provisions.

Urge your U.S. Representatives and Senators to call for a vote in Congress to support the U.S. becoming a signatory to the UN Convention on Biodiversity.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 6, 2018) Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is getting plenty of attention for what the public and some members of Congress see as his spendthrift and potentially corrupt behaviors since taking office in early 2017. Pundits and prognosticators who focus on the Washington, DC scene are speculating that this attention is not welcome by the White House, and wonder if Mr. Pruitt will soon be on the “wrong end of a Trump tweet.” 

This may be refreshing news to environmental advocates, scientists, and public health experts, who have objected to the “changes” he’s brought to the agency, which frequently favor industry interests over science-based protection of the environment and public health. EPA’s moves to reduce enforcement, roll back protective regulations, and install industry-friendly personnel have been covered extensively by Beyond Pesticides; examples include: “Where Has All the EPA Enforcement Gone,” “The Threat to Scientific Integrity at EPA,” and regular posts in its Daily News Blog.

Administrator Pruitt calls his approach to EPA’s function “Back to Basics,” which he says includes a refocus on EPA’s “intended mission, a return of power to the states, and creation of an environment where jobs can grow.” The agency website sets out the “three Es” of the Back-to-Basics agenda: Environment: protecting the environment; Economy: sensible regulations that allow economic growth; and Engagement: engaging with state and local partners. The new agenda was announced in April 2017 at a coal mine in Sycamore, Pennsylvania — a telling gesture that betrays Pruitt’s actual allegiances: to the extractive, chemical, industrial, and transportation interests that are the chief sources of environmental degradation in the U.S.

Of course, neither the intent of its creators nor the mission of EPA identifies job creation and economic growth as aspects of the agency’s purview or goals. The agency’s mission reads: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the federal government of the United States which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.” The back-to-basics language that the Pruitt EPA has invented is a sleight of speech intended to skew public perception of what the EPA does, and thereby, create “cover” for its deconstruction of environmental protections.

One might presume that Mr. Pruitt, in promoting this agenda for the EPA, would also be promoting a culture of responsible spending by the agency. On the contrary, his spending has been far beyond basic, and has included routine travel by first-class airline flights or military jets and staying at high-end hotels. In June 2017, he and his aides racked up $90,000 in travel costs — which amount doesn’t include the cost of his 24/7 security detail. Mother Jones highlighted an example: “On Monday, June 5, accompanied by his personal security detail, Pruitt . . . raced to New York on a military jet, at a cost of $36,068.50, to catch a plane to Rome.”

Mr. Pruitt has also spent lavishly on contending with what he and his officials call “security threats.” To be sure, he has received four-to-five times as many threats as his predecessor, though the credibility of such threats is not clear — nor is it clear how flying first class keeps him any safer than flying coach. Politico notes that some of the threats have comprised only “threatening tweets and a menacing postcard.”

EPA initially claimed that Mr. Pruitt has a “blanket waiver” to upgrade from coach airline travel because of those “security threats.” That claim was investigated and discovered to be false; the General Services Administration bans “blanket waivers,” and mandates that government employees must request a waiver for each trip. After Politico publicly pointed this out, EPA walked back its claim.

Administrator Pruitt’s extreme concern about security has moved some observers to suggest a level of paranoia that is costing taxpayers a bundle. The spending on accommodations to perceived security threats includes $43,000 on installation of a soundproof phone booth in his office, and $9,000 to sweep his office for listening devices, and install biometric locks and “access control card readers.” His own employees are required to have an escort to come into his office, and are sometimes prohibited from taking notes at meetings. Pruitt’s team also guards his schedule carefully; some believe this is an effort to be unpredictable and so, less easily targeted. But it also makes it difficult for the Fourth Estate to cover the Administrator’s activities. Kate Yoder, writing for Grist, says, “The secretive schedule is a departure from the norm and shields him from some level of scrutiny. It’s unclear if Pruitt is more concerned about outside threats or keeping journalists and the public in the dark about what he’s up to.”

Mr. Pruitt has also insisted on an unprecedented, round-the-clock security detail to accompany him when he travels — including on vacation trips to the Rose Bowl and Disneyland, and on frequent trips back home to Oklahoma. Costs for this security detail — which always flies first class — have not been released, but CNN has indicated that they come in at approximately $2 million per year, not including travel, training, and equipment.

In early April, Rep. Elijah Cummings and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi called for hearings on whether the Trump administration has “adequate controls” to protect taxpayer money in light of recent “extravagant air travel” by cabinet members, calling out in particular Pruitt’s flight to Italy for a summit in 2017 that racked up $120,249, and naming it “questionable and expensive travel at the taxpayer expense.”

That Administrator Scott Pruitt came to his EPA position with a decidedly industry-friendly bent is old news. That history, which includes 14 lawsuits against the agency — 13 of which also included players from EPA-regulated industries — continues to be relevant context in which to consider the activity of Mr. Pruitt and his EPA. In what may be an example of a quid pro quo arrangement tied to a fossil fuel industry lobbyist, in the last week of March ABC News reported that Pruitt had secured an unusually advantageous deal for his living arrangement — in a high-price Capitol Hill neighborhood — during his first six months in DC.

The rental property belongs in part (via an LLC) to the wife of a lobbyist, J. Steven Hart, who not only has contributed to Mr. Pruitt’s political campaigns, but also, represents a liquefied natural gas company. Administrator Pruitt secured a deal to pay $50 a night for a single bedroom in a condo, and only for the nights he actually used it, expending a total of $6,100 over the six months. Mr. Pruitt’s daughter stayed in a second bedroom while interning at the White House and frequently used the condo kitchen, though that was not part of the deal. Bloomberg News reported that initially, Mr. Pruitt could not produce any documentation demonstrating a lease arrangement or any rental payments; the landlord ultimately provided EPA officials with such evidence.

EPA officials defended the arrangement; EPA official Justina Fugh indicated that Mr. Pruitt had “paid a fair price for what amounts to just a room. . . . So I don’t even think that the fact the house is owned by a person whose job is to be a lobbyist causes us concern.” Critics think otherwise: Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, said in a news release, “This appears to be a gift from a lobbyist to the EPA administrator. . . . Scott Pruitt seems to be renting at well below market value — from a family member of a lobbyist who has business before the EPA.” Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said, “At the very least, it doesn’t look good for the administrator of EPA to have rented an apartment from the wife of an energy industry lobbyist who represents companies regulated by EPA.”

The editorial board of The Washington Post wrote, on April 2, that Ms. Fugh “described this as ‘a routine business transaction.’ Yet anyone who has suffered through finding a rental apartment in central Washington knows that reserving a bedroom for yourself at that price, paid for only sporadically and when you are in residence, without a year-long commitment, with a second bedroom available for family, is highly improbable if not impossible — without connections. . . . If Mr. Pruitt had paid fair rent on realistic terms, the connection would be merely concerning. In light of the cushy deal the administrator got, the arrangement is pure swamp.” The New York Times’s Paul Krugman went further in a March 30 Tweet, calling the deal a “de facto bribe.”

Media have covered this story as a potential conflict of interest scandal, noting that the arrangement creates at least the appearance of impropriety, if it does not constitute actual impropriety. Congressional Representative Carlos Curbelo has called Mr. Pruitt’s conduct “an embarrassment.” He and another Florida Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, have called for his resignation. Whether Administrator Pruitt’s spending or his special deal on housing would on their own merits win the attention of the White House is debatable. But the growing attention to Mr. Pruitt’s behavior is not likely welcome by the administration, which has in the past not appreciated being embarrassed by certain behaviors of its Cabinet members or appointees.

Source: https://grist.org/briefly/scott-pruitt-might-be-on-the-wrong-end-of-a-trump-tweet-soon-heres-why

(Beyond Pesticides, April 5, 2018) An industry-backed attempt to enact pesticide preemption in the state of Maine is officially over after bill LD 1853 was voted down by a 9-2 margin earlier this week.  The bill, introduced by state Senator Tom Saviello (R-Wilton), resembled a similar bill that failed in the same legislative committee last spring. With an ever increasing number of communities in Maine stepping up to protect their residents and unique local environment from pesticide contamination, the repeated introduction of preemption legislation means that health advocates and forward-thinking communities must continue to remain vigilant, and ready to fight to maintain their right to home rule.

LD 1853 would have taken away the rights of Maine municipalities to enact policies which wholly apply to private property. “I thought if there was a bill that would come back before us again it would be different,” said state Representative Richard Pickett (R-Dixfield) to the Portland Press Herald. “But we virtually had almost a duplicate bill and that troubled me.”

While last year’s failed legislation was modeled almost word for word from the notorious industry lobby group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the changes in the new bill were superficial, and the intent remained the same. LD 1853 exempted licensed applicators in the state from municipal pesticide regulations. The impact of such a policy would stop an ordinance like the one recently passed in Portland, ME from applying to lawn care services like TruGreen, which use toxic pesticides on a regular basis as part of their business plan.

As reported by the Portland Press Herald, each iteration of this legislation has been promoted primarily by the state’s Governor, Paul LePage (R). In 2017, after the original ALEC-model bill failed, the Governor tried to insert preemption language as part of state budget negotiations. Governor LePage, who has a 53% disapproval rating, the 8^th highest in the nation, is term limited and cannot seek reelection later this year.

While LePage may be on his way out, there is no indication that ALEC or the pesticide industry will stop attempts to institute state preemption in Maine, or any other state. The industry has attacked local laws in both Maryland and Hawaii, with an unfortunate degree of success. In both cases, despite no explicit preemption language codified into law in either state, industry argued that there is “implicit” preemption, whereby the state “occupies the field” when it comes to pesticide regulation. While options to appeal were limited in Hawaii, lawmakers in Montgomery County, Maryland, which passed a landmark ban on public and private cosmetic pesticide use, decided to appeal a Circuit Court ruling that overturned aspects of the ban that applied to private property.

The fact remains that, as ruled in the 1991 Supreme Court case Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, FIFRA sets a floor, not a ceiling, which states and local communities can build additional laws upon in order to protect their unique local environment or their residents’ health. The court however also ruled that, while the federal government could not impose pesticide preemption, states would maintain the ability to do so.  Thus, ALEC and the pesticide industry went state-by-state, working to pass preemption legislation throughout the 1990s, fearing the type of legislation passed by Maine local governments like Portland, South Portland, and Ogunquit.

Some communities, such as Oregon’s Lincoln County, have bucked state preemption laws despite the likelihood of a lawsuit. Late last year, a citizen-led ballot initiative banning aerial spraying passed by 61 votes. It was quickly followed by a lawsuit led by a local farmer who uses aerial pesticide sprays. Another locality, Fairfax, CA, passed a private property pesticide neighbor notification requirement in the early 2000s, and has kept the requirement in its Town code despite warning letters from the state. Last year, the communities of Oak Park and Evanston, IL both passed resolutions requesting the state of Illinois overturn pesticide preemption laws.

As the over a dozen localities in Maine that have pesticide ordinances that apply to private property show, when the state provides the opportunity, there is strong demand for local pesticide reform.

Tell us you’re ready to fight against the pesticide industry, and for a pesticide-free community by signing the pledge today. And for more information on why pesticide preemption is a threat to our local democratic process, see Beyond Pesticides’ State Preemption Law fact sheet.

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

Source:  Maine Legislature, Portland Press Herald

(Beyond Pesticides, April 4, 2018) In late March, the Missouri Department of Agriculture hosted a public hearing to discuss a proposed emergency rule restricting the sale and use of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D – which are known for their ability to drift off-site and damage sensitive crops. The emergency rule was introduced to prevent off-label use of specific dicamba or 2,4-D products. Thus far, dicamba is responsible for damaging approximately 325,000 acres of soybeans in the state last year.

The proposed rule will stop sales of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D between April 15 and October 1 in Missouri. The department’s goal is to prevent off-label pesticides from drifting onto neighboring property and damaging other crops. According to the department, if it chooses to pursue an emergency rule, it could become effective as soon as April 1, 2018, and expire 180 days later. The rule also requires registrants to provide a sales record by April 30 for each pesticide sold between October 1 and April 15. A proposed rule will be filed at the same time as an emergency rule to initiate the formal rulemaking process.

The draft rule language reads as follows:

1. Pesticides that meet the conditions of this section are considered restricted use pesticides in Missouri and are only allowed to be sold or held for sale in the state from Oct. 1 of each year through April 15 of the following year.
   • Any pesticide that contains any dicamba active ingredient concentration greater than or equal to 6.5%, except if the pesticide:
     1. Contains any other broadleaf herbicide ingredient as an active ingredient; and/or
     2. Is labeled solely for use on non-agricultural use sites.
   • Any pesticide that contains any 2,4-D active ingredient concentration greater than or equal to 12%, except if the pesticide:
     1. Contains any other broadleaf herbicide ingredient as an active ingredient; 
     2. Is labeled solely for use on non-agricultural use sites; and/or
     3. Is labeled for in-crop post-emergence use in 2,4-D tolerant soybeans and cotton.
        
2. By April 30 of each year, registrants will provide to the director a report of sales for each pesticide that meets the conditions of the previous subsection sold between Oct. 1 and April 15. Each report will include:
   • Complete pesticide trade name, United States EPA registration number, and quantity sold reported by container size; and
   • Business name and address for each distributor or retail outlet to whom the pesticides were sold.

In January, Arkansas prohibited the use of dicamba in agriculture from April 16 to October 31, 2018, following a vote by the state’s Legislative Council. This followed a vote last year to continue a temporary ban on dicamba into 2018. Dicamba maker, Monsanto, sued the state to keep their drift-prone product on the market despite a lengthy process of evaluation and public comment that led to the prohibition on dicamba during the growing season on Arkansas farms. However, it lost its bid to halt a statewide ban on the use of its specialty dicamba herbicide in Arkansas.

Dicamba is an herbicide originally registered for use in 1967 to control broadleaf weeds. The chemical is notoriously known to drift off-site large distances after application, but Monsanto (with its XTEND herbicide) as well as the companies BASF (Engenia herbicide) and DowDupont (FeXapan herbicide), attempted to produce formulations that did not volatilize as much as older formulations. However, damage reports did not slow, and research by weed scientists found that the new product does volatize enough to cause drift damage.

The new dicamba products were hastened by the increasing failure of another herbicide, glyphosate, to control herbicide-tolerant weeds in fields of genetically engineered (GE) crops. Weed resistance to Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready GE crops led the company to reach for older, more toxic chemicals to incorporate into their new line of GE cropping systems. The company released new seeds developed to tolerate dicamba, however, it did so without a companion herbicide it was also developing, which was purported to present fewer issues with drift. Many believed the source of early reports of drift and damaged fields stemmed from farmers using older, off-label versions of dicamba on new GE seeds. The company eventually released its companion herbicide “Xtend,” a combination of glyphosate and dicamba, but reports of crop damage from drift continued. Hundreds of complaints of dicamba damage have been filed by Arkansas and Missouri, with hundreds of thousands of acres and soybean damage reported.

With predictions that over 40 million acres will be planted with dicamba-tolerant soy in 2018, action by other states to restrict the use of dicamba is needed now. Restrictions are in place or being considered in a number of states, including North Dakota, and Minnesota. If you are concerned about the use of dicamba-based herbicides in agricultural areas where you live, contact your state department of agriculture and voice your concerns. Find their contact information through Beyond Pesticides’ state pages. For more information about the hazardous associated with GE agriculture, see our program page on genetic engineering.

Source: KBIA

(Beyond Pesticides, April 3, 2018) Humans’ unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, worldwide, has reached critical proportions, threatening the ability of an estimated 3.2 billion people to have food and water security, according to a new international study. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services report (IPBES) unearths the crisis faced by two-fifths of the world’s population due to the worsening of land degradation, declining species biodiversity, and the intensification of climate change. While the report presents a bleak picture of how humans have substantially degraded the natural resources essential to survival, it also offers some hope by identifying the changes could be adopted by governments with a political will. Publication of the IPBES comes with a stern warning from the report’s Chair, Robert Watson, PhD, who cautions that “the time for action was yesterday or the day before.”

The extensively peer-reviewed report, conducted by 100 experts from 45 countries, represents a compilation of four regional assessments in the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Africa, and Europe and Central Asia. It is intended to provide policy makers with “the best available evidence” to make important decisions about corrective actions they can take to avoid, reduce, and even reverse land degradation and its impacts. In addition to detailing the root causes of biodiversity losses and ecosystem damages, it also examines the social, cultural, political, and economic influences that can affect long-lasting change. Central to the report is a strong and often repeated message that the window of opportunity for reversing land degradation and its impacts is closing. Dr. Watson warns that, “We must act to halt and reverse the unsustainable use of nature – or risk not only the future we want, but even the lives we currently lead.”

Heightened pesticide use has also adversely affected species diversity of both target and non-target species. It has also adversely impacted food and water security. The organophosphate insecticides chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species and adversely modify their critical habitats, according to a  December 2017 Biological Opinion of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The opinion followed an ecological assessment that relied upon multiple lines of evidence to determine effects to species and their designated habitats.

Excessive synthetic fertilizer applications in chemical-intensive agriculture is the leading cause of the eutrophication of water bodies. Earlier this year, researchers at the University of California Davis published a study in Science Advances with the finding that regulators in the state drastically underestimate chemical-intensive agriculture’s contribution to nitrogen oxide (NOx) caused air pollution, acid rain, and respiratory illness in the state. While NO_x  pollution is usually associated with energy production and vehicle emissions, fertilizer use on crop fields is contributing to significant air pollution problems. Advocates have said that the study is an urgent call for farmers to eliminate dependency on soluble, synthetic, nitrogen-based fertilizers and adopt the use of insoluble soil amendments that support soil biology that provide plants with nutrients. The well-documented “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico provides a case in point, where the large influx of nitrogen run-off from agriculture has stimulated the production of harmful algae and created a low oxygen environment bereft of marine life. According to IPBES report projections, pesticide and fertilizer use will double by 2050, based on current use patterns and the spiraling demands for food, biofuels, and more meat-based diets. Other adverse impacts of agricultural production systems on the natural environment include decreases soil fertility, acidification, salinization and waterlogging, all of which impinge upon food production yields.

Concrete solutions offered in the report include: halting agriculture expansion into native habitats, improving soil health, conservation agriculture, shifts toward integrated crop, livestock, and forestry agriculture, more plant-based foods, and food waste reduction.

Land degradation is defined in the IPBES as “the many human-caused processes that drive the decline or loss in biodiversity, ecosystem functions or ecosystem services in any terrestrial and associated aquatic ecosystems.” Chief among the cultural drivers of land degradation is the high consumption lifestyles of people living in advanced industrialized countries, the growing consumption in emerging economies, and increasing population growth. All of these behaviors cause land degradation through natural resource and mineral extraction and by fueling agricultural and urban sprawl. Such activities have left less than 25% of the Earth’s surface free from human intervention, mostly in deserts, tundra, mountains, and polar-regions.

The IPBES report tells the somber story of how natural resource exploitation is rapidly accelerating around the world and how and why the rate of species decline varies considerably among regions. The Americas, for example, is home to an estimated 40% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Yet the region, with only 13% of the world’s population, exploits natural resources at twice the global average. And, if the world continues its current fast pace of exploitation without any major course corrections, IPBES estimates that global biodiversity could decline by another 10% by 2050.

Biodiversity has been most strongly affected by agriculture, followed by forestry, infrastructure development, urban encroachment and climate change. The resultant reduction and elimination in the suitability of habitats is the major cause of biodiversity losses. IPBES identified a nearly 40 percent decline in the average population size of wild terrestrial vertebrate species and an 81 percent decline in freshwater vertebrate species between 1970 and 2012. UN Administrator of the Development Program, Achim Steiner, argues that “Biodiversity and the ecosystem services its supports are not only the foundation for life on Earth, but critical to the livelihoods and well-being of people everywhere.”

Agricultural production contributes 10-20 percent of all human-induced global greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation contributes about 10 percent. Land degradation combined with climate change is expected to reduce crop yields by an average of 10 percent, but that figure could reach up to 50 percent by 2050. The release of previously stored carbon in soils represents another significant source of carbon dioxide emissions. An estimated 4.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide was released into the environment between 2000 and 2009. If that trend continues in the Americas, climate change will become the primary cause of biodiversity loss.

Authors of the IPBES report have dubbed its findings “a wake-up call for all of us.” It will also undoubtedly serve that function for the 198 parties to the Convention on Biodiversity who will be attending the upcoming meeting in Egypt in November of this year. Aided by conclusions drawn from the report, agreements will be made on targets for improving biodiversity and strengthening compliance with the treaty. While the U.S. is a party to the Convention, it is not a signatory, which means that it is not legally bound by treaty provisions. You can do your part to change that by contacting your U.S. House Representative and Senators and urging them to call for a vote in Congress to support the U.S. becoming a signatory to the Convention. This is an important first step for the U.S. to join hands with the global community and to work jointly to develop and implement solutions to the combat the biodiversity crisis.

Agricultural Sources:  IPBES media release; The Guardian; EcoWatch

(Beyond Pesticides, April 2, 2018) The comment period closes Wednesday, April 4 at 11:59 pm for the Spring 2018 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Meeting.

Decisions governing the substances allowed in organic food production are subject to public input twice a year. Public participation in this process is critical to the quality of the decisions and meeting both consumer and farmer expectations. In this context, Beyond Pesticides analyzes the proposals before the NOSB, shares its analysis and comments with the public, and urges people to engage the process and make their views known to decision makers. Details are provided below.

In addition to the other priorities in our previous alert (preventing fraud in organic, removing incentives to convert native ecosystems to organic crop production, and the use of bisphenol A [BPA] and other chemicals in organic packaging), we focus attention here on some genetic engineering (GE) issues, contaminated inputs, and “inert” ingredients.

New to Regulations.gov? See our two-minute tutorial.

Comment now!

Beyond Pesticides provides you with our positions, which you can use as the basis for your comments. If you have limited time, you can use the sample comments on priority issues, below. If you have more time, please use the information on our website to develop your own comments. If you 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 at the Spring NOSB meeting are:

Non-GMO Organic Seed Integrity (Seed Purity from GMOs)
The issue of protecting the genetic integrity of seed grown on organic land is related to two others that are not on the agenda –strengthening and clarifying the requirements for the use of organic seed, and excluded methods terminology. Addressing these two issues adequately would help to ensure that the presence of plants growing from GE seeds is greatly reduced on organic farms.

The issue of protecting the genetic integrity of seed grown on organic land is concerned with those instances when organic producers plant nonorganic seed, so any efforts to strengthen the requirements for organic seed would tend to eliminate the problem. Strengthening and clarifying the requirements for the use of organic seed should remain on the agenda to eliminate inconsistencies in the enforcement of the National Organic Program’s (NOP’s) broad exemption that allows the use of conventionally produced seed in certified organic. A rule change to the seed practice standard is needed to require a demonstrable improvement over time until 100% organic seed use is achieved.

Excluded methods terminology should be maintained on the NOSB agenda to keep up with a fast-moving biotechnology industry. Organic regulations prohibit the use of genetic engineering, but the NOP needs to define terms in order to ensure that those regulations are enforceable.

Efforts to quantify the extent of GE contamination and provide transparency in GE content of non-organic seeds should not further burden organic growers.

Contaminated Inputs
It is important for the NOSB to maintain a focus on the problem of contaminated inputs, which threatens the quality of organic products and soil on organic farms. However, the NOSB last addressed the issue in a report in Spring 2015. The report offered an approach for addressing this complex issue through examining feedstocks and pathways. We support the approach in that report. In the intervening three years, the NOSB has not made progress, but another source of contamination has risen in importance — use of water contaminated by oil and gas production. If “organic” is to maintain its meaning, we must prevent the unintended contamination that can occur when organic matter is recycled from off-farm sources, or when outside forces contaminate water supplies.

“Inert” Ingredients
“Inert” ingredients frequently comprise as much as 99% of pesticide products. So-called “inert” ingredients are not inert, and are not disclosed to users or others who may be exposed. Given 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 at Regulations.gov!

(Beyond Pesticides, March 30, 2018) While conventional farming practices rely primarily on new sources of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer to grow crops, organic agriculture conserves nitrogen by using recycled sources, as detailed by new research published by the University of Virginia (UVA) and The Organic Center. Of concern is ‘reactive nitrogen,’ which is nitrogen in a form that will eventually be used by plants (ex. nitrous oxide (N₂O), nitrate (NO₃^–), nitrite (NO₂^–), ammonia (NH₃), and ammonium (NH₄⁺)), rather than benign, non-reactive nitrogen in the form of N_2.  “This research is significant and timely because its findings show that many common organic farming practices—like composting and the use of manure fertilization in place of synthetic fertilizers—can recycle reactive nitrogen that is already in the global system rather than introducing new reactive nitrogen into the environment, and thus have a much smaller environmental impact,” said Jessica Shade, PhD of The Organic Center.

Earlier this year, researchers at the University of California Davis published a study in Science Advances with the finding that regulators in the state drastically underestimate chemical-intensive agriculture’s contribution to nitrogen oxide (NOx) caused air pollution, acid rain, and respiratory illness in the state. While NO_x  pollution is usually associated with energy production and vehicle emissions, fertilizer use on crop fields is contributing to significant air pollution problems. Advocates have said that the study is an urgent call for farmers to eliminate dependency on soluble, synthetic, nitrogen-based fertilizers and adopt the use of insoluble soil amendments that support soil biology that provide plants with nutrients.

Nitrogen fertilizer is associated with a range of human health and environmental problems. Much of the fertilizer that is not taken up by plants is either released into the atmosphere in its reactive form, where it can cause air pollution, or makes its way into waterways, where it can result in toxic algae blooms. In 2016, Florida’s lake Okeechobee, the largest in the state, experienced an algae bloom that resulted in the Governor declaring an environmental state of emergency. In 2014, a bloom of toxic cyanobacteria, a blue-green algae, contaminated lake Erie so significantly that it resulted in a “do not drink, do not boil” water crisis in the City of Toledo, Ohio. According to a report published in February 2018, regulators are likely drastically underestimating the amount that nitrogen gasses released from fertilized fields contribute to air pollution.

The health risks of nitrogen pollution are greater than “blue-baby syndrome.” A 2016 found that nitrate that made its way into drinking water was associated with birth defects, cancers, and thyroid problems.

The Organic Center, UVA study found that 60 to 100 percent of inputs on conventional farms came from new sources of reactive nitrogen fertilizer. This is synthetic fertilizer, created by an industrial process known as Haber-Bosch, wherein benign nitrogen from the air is converted into ammonia. This form of nitrogen is immediately available to plants.

On the other hand, organic farms were found to utilize nitrogen primarily from recycled sources, such as compost and manure. This accounts for between 80 and 95 percent of nitrogen used in organic agriculture, with the only new nitrogen formed being that which is produced by nitrogen-fixing bacteria on the roots of legumes and cover crops. Overall, researchers found that organic practices resulted in 64% less new nitrogen into the environment.

The Organic Center’s Tracy Misiewicz, PhD notes, “The total number of nitrogen atoms on Earth remains constant, so we need to understand what proportion of the total is present in a polluting form vs. a non-polluting form. This research shows that rather than converting benign nitrogen into polluting nitrogen, organic farming practices overwhelmingly recycle reactive nitrogen instead of introducing new reactive nitrogen into our environment.”

Moreover, the recycled sources of nitrogen used on organic farms usually require microbial action in order to convert nitrogen into a plant available form. This ensures that nitrogen added to these fields stays in place longer, rather than running off into local waterways or emitting polluted forms into the atmosphere.

These data mean that 93% of conventional food consumed comes from newly created nitrogen sources, while only 33% of organic nitrogen came from new sources.

Organic systems never employ the use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers produced via the Haber-Bosch process. Synthetic fertilizers are prohibited under the Organic Foods Production Act, the statute that establishes organic certification and the USDA organic food label. Concerned consumers can help support an environmentally stable, less polluted food production system by purchasing organic food whenever possible. Individuals can also get involved by passing policies that stop the use of synthetic inputs in their community, and eliminate the use of synthetic fertilizers on their own property by referring to Beyond Pesticides’ List of Organic Compatible Fertilizer Products.  Follow the lead of communities like Dover, NH, which recently restricted both synthetic pesticide and fertilizer inputs. Contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450, for resources to create change.

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

Source: The Organic Center