(Beyond Pesticides, March 3, 2017) A new report identifies antibiotic use in conventional plant and animal agriculture as contributing to bacterial resistance to critical life-saving human medicines and the importance of organic agriculture in eliminating antibiotic use. The report, Agricultural Uses of Antibiotics Escalate Bacterial Resistance, published in the latest issue of Pesticides and You, finds that while antibiotic use in animal agriculture is widely acknowledged as harmful, the use of antibiotics in chemical-intensive crop production also pose unnecessary and significant risks. The World Health Organization in 2016 identified bacterial resistance to antibiotics as “one of the biggest threats to global health.”

The report notes that the herbicide glyphosate, one of the most widely used pesticides in the U.S., is patented by its manufacturer, Monsanto, for its antibacterial properties. As a result, glyphosate leads as the most   widely used antibiotic in agriculture and around homes, gardens, schools, and communities in the U.S. Other antibiotics used widely in apple and pear production are oxytetracycline and streptomycin, which is also used in the production of peaches, beans, celery, peppers, tomatoes and potatoes. These uses at environmentally relevant levels increase bacterial resistance to important antibiotics in medicine.

“Resistant bacteria move from farms to families, through the environment to the human population, said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. Adding to the problem, he said, “The ability of antibiotics to disturb or kill the gut micro-biota in humans can lead to autoimmune and other 21st century diseases, including diabetes, obesity, food allergies, heart disease, antibiotic-resistant infections, cancer, asthma, autism, irritable bowel syndrome, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and more.”

Regulation of antibiotic use in agriculture is divided between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Widespread criticism over the use of antibiotics in animal production led to FDA’s 2016 Veterinary Feed Directive, which limits livestock use of medically important antibiotics for humans to therapeutic use only with the oversight of a veterinarian –a restriction with significant loopholes for continued antibiotic use.

The report calls for (i) stringent regulations to eliminate use of antibiotics in food production, which leads to antibiotic resistance, residues in manure, and contamination of waterways, and (ii) a widespread shift to certified organic food production, which prohibits all antibiotics. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) moved to eliminate the last allowed use in organic crop production, on apples and pears, in 2013.

A fully cited version of this Pesticides and You report is available at bit.ly/PAYantibiotics.

This year’s National Pesticide Forum, Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Healthy Land, will feature a variety of speakers. You can register today by clicking here, and see below for a sneak peak of some key speakers that will touch on this subject:

David Montgomery is a MacArthur Fellow and professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington. He is an internationally recognized geologist who studies landscape evolution and the effects of geological processes on ecological systems and human societies. He is the author of several books, including The Hidden Half of Nature, an exploration of how microbes are transforming the way we see nature and ourselves―and could revolutionize agriculture and medicine.

William Arnold is a Distinguished McKnight University Professor and the Joseph T. and Rose S. Ling Professor and Associate Head of the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering at the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on the fate of organic chemicals in natural and engineered aquatic systems. Arnold’s research was influential in helping lawmakers, other researchers, and regulators understand the levels of triclosan and triclosan related dioxins in Minnesota lakes.

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

Visit our National Pesticide Forum webpage for further information.

(Beyond Pesticides, March 2, 2017) On Tuesday, the European Commission (EC) refrained from voting on proposed scientific criteria that would have identified endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC) and led to regulation on their use in EU countries. This sends the Commission back to the drawing board on the proposal, on which they hope to eventually take a formal vote. The failure to move forward with defined criteria on these hazardous chemicals, which are present in pesticides, biocides, and self-care products, is still largely due to the disagreements of voting member states over the rules reflecting hazard or risk-based criteria. There have been several other meetings of the member states on this proposal, including a meeting in December which highlighted the inadequacies of the criteria. After this meeting, according to Bas Eickhout, of the Greens-European Free Alliance, “Under the Commission’s criteria, it is likely that not a single substance would be identified as an endocrine disrupter, and they would effectively escape specific regulation.”

This all follows on the weak regulations issued by the EC in June 2016 to regulate endocrine disruptors in pesticide products, which ultimately undermine the precautionary legal standard that governs pesticide usage in Europe. Many scientists and advocacy organizations criticized the proposed regulations for creating an impossibly high burden of proof for defining harm from endocrine disrupting pesticides and other products.

According to Commission documents, the “adoption of criteria to identify endocrine-disrupting substances will fulfill the legal obligations under the plant protection products and biocides legislation. Once adopted, the EU regulatory system will be the first regulatory system worldwide to define scientific criteria for endocrine disruptors in legislation.” The stalling of this process to define and adopt criteria is resulting in unnecessary and harmful exposures to all citizens in Europe, but will hopefully result in criteria that are adequately protective of public health and the environment.

The regulations created by the EC endorse the World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of EDCs. WHO defines an endocrine disruptor as “an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations.” However, the regulations go little beyond defining the term, and do not include clear criteria, which is what the EC has been trying to sort out for the past few months. In speaking with The Guardian, Andreas Kortenkamp, PhD, stated, “In effect, the commission has decided to place the burden of deciding how to regulate endocrine disrupting chemicals onto the assessors on a case-by-case basis.”

Mirroring the EC’s failure to complete its process to regulate endocrine disruptors, the U.S. has taken little action despite a mandate in the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) that requires EPA to screen pesticides for their endocrine disrupting potential. To date, EPA has only partially screened some chemicals.

Under EPA’s endocrine disruption screening protocol (EDSP), the agency uses a two-tiered approach to screen pesticide chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential effect on estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems. EPA’s last publicly released report for tier 1 screening of only 52 chemicals found no evidence of endocrine pathways for 20 chemicals. For 14 chemicals that the agency said did show potential interaction, EPA stated that it “already has enough information to conclude that they do not pose risks.” Of the remaining 18 chemicals which went through tier 2 screening, EPA found that all showed potential interaction with the thyroid pathway, 17 of them with the androgen (male hormones) pathway, and 14 also potentially interacted with the estrogen (female hormones) pathway.

It will take several more years for EPA to completely screen any endocrine disrupting chemicals. Not surprisingly, EPA’s EDSP has been heavily criticized for decade-long delays and not placing the chemicals through more rigorous testing that includes low dose responses in the interest of protecting human health and the environment. The failure to incorporate modern toxicological science has led researchers to criticize EPA’s testing protocol as outdated, and not keeping pace with advancing science. The agency does not evaluate the potential for chemicals to exhibit non-monotonic dose response curves, where a material shows the potential for a harmful response at low, even minute levels of exposure. This effect, confirmed through independent research, challenges the traditional toxicological maxim that “the dose makes the poison.”

Beyond Pesticides supports strong protections from pesticides, including endocrine disruptors, by advocating for regulatory action that supports and encourages alternative systems that do not require these chemicals. Through the Eating with a Conscience tool, those concerned about pesticides on their produce and can find out the chemicals that are allowed in their production. Beyond Pesticides’ Lawn and Landscapes webpage helps property owners manage healthy, weed-free lawns without the use of pesticides linked to endocrine disruption and other ill health effects. Ultimately, by supporting organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of harmful synthetic pesticides, the health and economic burden that endocrine disruptors and other pesticides put on our society can be drastically reduced.

Sources: The Connexion, Chemical Watch

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

(Beyond Pesticides, March 1, 2017) The Fig wasp is the pollinator of the month for March. A highly evolved pollinator crucial to the life cycle of the fig tree, the fig wasp is part of the chalcidoid family. Within this classification, it is a member of the agaonidae sub family, which consists of both mutualistic pollinating, and parasitic, non-pollinating, fig wasps.

Fig wasps have a mutually beneficially relationship with fig trees, as both the tree and the wasp rely on each other for reproduction. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, there are about 900 species of pollinating fig wasps that are responsible for pollinating 900 different fig tree species. The relationship between fig trees and fig wasps is so evolved that each type of fig wasp pollinates only one specific type of fig tree, creating a beautiful and interdependent evolutionary partnership.

Range
The range of the fig wasp is dependent on the range of fig trees, which, according to the Encyclopedia of Life, are mainly found in the tropical and subtropical areas of the southern hemisphere. The most widely known fig tree, the common fig tree, or Ficus carica, is native to southwest Asia and the Mediterranean, and range anywhere from Afghanistan to Portugal. The strong demand and high commercial value of the fig fruit has led to the naturalization of the common fig tree in additional parts of the world that have the requisite mild and semi-arid climate required for the species to grow. California, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington all commercially produce the common fig tree.

Western consumers predominately eat figs from the common fig tree. This is due largely to the fact that this variety does not require pollination to the same extent as other fig species, making them easy to grow at home or in climates without naturally occurring fig wasp populations. However, there are two species of fig wasps that have been introduced in North America, which are typically used to pollinate the commercially valuable Smyrna fig.

Diet, Pollination, and Life Cycle
The fig wasp exclusively coexists with fig trees, which makes the fig fruit their primary source of nutrition. In order to understand the diet and method of pollination of the fig wasp it is important to understand their life cycle, which is heavily intertwined with the fig fruit. Fig wasps can be separated into two different groups, pollinating and non-pollinating, each of which plays an important role in the life cycle of a fig. Pollinating wasps provide a mutually beneficial service to the trees in the form of pollination, while non-pollinating wasps use the plant as a source of food, and often act as a parasites to either the fig plant or the pollinating wasps.

The first stage in the fig wasp’s life cycle occurs when a female fig wasp first enters an unripe fig fruit through a small opening known as the ostiole, and travels to the synconium, or inner part of the fig fruit, which contains both male and female flowers. Once inside, she will lay her eggs in the shorter flower structures. The longer flower structures remain unfertilized and eventually develop into the seeds you see inside of a fig. While laying her eggs, the female fig wasp inadvertently pollinates the female flowers found inside the fig fruit by transferring traces of pollen particles from the fig fruit in which she originally hatched. Once their eggs are laid, female fig wasps die within the fig.

As the fig fruit and the eggs mature, male wasps hatch and emerge from their eggs, known as galls, traveling within the fruit towards the synconium in search of females to fertilize. After doing his part to fertilize the female, a male fig wasp will begin digging escape tunnels for the females once they hatch, though he will never get to benefit from them himself, as males die within the fig fruit during this process. Because they never leave the fruit in which they were born, male fig wasps do not have wings.

As all of this is happening, the male flowers are maturing and creating pollen for the new batch of female fig wasps to transfer to the next fig fruit. Once the female hatches she makes her way through one of the escape tunnels dug by the males, picking up pollen from the male flowers in the process. With pollen now in tow via her body, the female emerges in search of a new fruit to lay her eggs in, pollinating another fig in the process and starting the cycle all over again. It is through this process that the highly specialized and enclosed flowers within the figs are pollinated, further demonstrating the interdependence between the life cycle of the fig wasp and the fig tree.

Physiology
Physical differences from one species to the next due to coevolution with their host fig tree species. Despite this highly evolved individuality, fig wasps do share some general some characteristics across the species.

Female fig wasps are larger in size than male fig wasps and, as mentioned above, females have wings while males do not, as they do not leave the fig within their life cycle. However, because one of their primary roles is to create tunnels for female wasps to exit the fig, male fig wasps have strong, specialized mandibles built to chew through the fig’s tough outer flesh. Females, on the other hand, are equipped with wings to travel to another fig tree or fig fruit to lay eggs.

According to the Encyclopedia of Life the female fig wasp’s body has evolved over time to fit into the ostiole of the fig.  There are special appendages on her head that help her body inch through the tight opening on the fig.  Additionally, some species of female fig wasps have evolved to have an extremely long ovipositor, the body part responsible for laying eggs.  This allows the female to lay her eggs from the outside of the fig without entering and trapping herself within the fruit.  Fig wasps have very short life spans, living only between 1-2 days once hatched from their eggs.

Ecological Role
Fig wasps may seem like a menial pollinator given that they only pollinate one type of plant, but that is far from the case!  The fig wasp is an integral species, as the fig tree has been identified as a keystone species in tropical rainforests where they help maintain the population and diversity of a variety of species. The Encyclopedia of Life defines a keystone species as “a species within the ecosystem that exerts a major influence on the composition and dynamics of the ecosystem of which it lives.” This means that the fig tree is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its environment, relative to its abundance within the ecosystem.

Many species rely on the fig fruit and its leaves as their main source of nutrients.  The Encyclopedia of Life lists the fig as a key resource for many fruit eating animals including fruit bats, several species of monkeys, and a plethora of birds.  Insects like caterpillars, moths and beetles all feed on the leaves of the fig tree. In fact, over 1,200 different species of birds and mammals have been recorded to eat fig fruits.

Threats to Existence and How to Protect Species
Currently, the fig wasp and the fig tree are not in immediate danger, however some scientists are concerned that climate change and global warming could have a negative impact on fig wasp populations. In a study done in Singapore in 2013, researchers studying fig wasps discovered that fig wasp survivability drastically reduced in climates that were warmer than their desired habitats. More extreme climates could threaten the productivity of fig wasps, possibly causing a decline in fig tree populations. Fig wasps are considered by researches to be resilient insects, having lived through planetary temperature changes over the past 60-80 million years. They hypothesize that as climate change continues to intensify, the insects will alter their behavior in order to adapt to warmer climates. However, if the changes in temperature take place too quickly for these adaptations to occur, it could conceivably threaten the existence of the fig wasp.

Tropical rainforest deforestation also poses a threat to fig wasps. As human development and agricultural activity continues to expand, forests around the world are being cleared at alarming rates, especially in developing countries where most of the world’s tropical rainforests are located. Fig trees and their companion pollinators are incredibly important to rainforest ecosystems, as they provide a popular source of food and attract seed dispersing animals.

There are a few things that can be done within your community to protect and foster fig wasps and fig tree populations. For starters, if you live in an area with an appropriate climate, consider planting a fig tree in your yard, garden, or community! The next vital step in protecting fig wasps and fig trees is to avoid the use of pesticides in your community. You should be aware of the chemicals used in your gardening solutions and avoid buying products that that contain neonicotinoids, a class of chemicals linked to pollinator declines. Neonicotinoids are systemic by nature, and if sprayed near a fig tree could be transported through the roots into the flower of the plant, threatening the fig wasps who live inside. For more information on the impact pesticides have on non-target organisms, read Beyond Pesticides’ report on Bees, Birds, and Beneficials, which can be found here.

Switching to organic approaches to prevent and control pests around your home and garden is the best way to protect the health of pollinator populations in your community. For more information on how you can get involved in pollinator conservation throughout the nation, see Beyond Pesticides BEE Protective webpage.

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

Sources: Encyclopedia of Life, Encyclopedia Britannica

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2017) Myclobutanil, a systemic fungicide commonly used in agriculture and home gardens, can cause significant damage to the muscles that honey bees use to fly and keep warm during the winter. The results of a study, published this month in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by a group of researchers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, underscore the importance of wide-scale education and movement away from the regular use of toxic pesticides. After nearly a decade of unsustainable losses, honey bees and other pollinators continue to suffer declines resulting from the use of toxic pesticides, particularly systemic insecticides called neonicotinoids.

Although a substantial body of science implicates neonicotinoids as the most serious chemical threat to pollinators currently, the effects of fungicides and other pesticides on these important animals should not be dismissed as inconsequential. In fact, a 2016 study published by researchers at the University of Maryland found that bee colonies may die off as the number of different pesticide exposures increase.

In this recent study, researchers discovered complex interactions between myclobutanil, natural compounds found in flowers, and honey bees’ detoxification system, known as cytochrome 450 enzymes. When foraging on flowers sprayed with myclobutanil, honey bees also consume small amounts of a flavonol called quercetin. In order to metabolize quercetin, bees use their cytochrome 450 enzymes. However, researchers find that myclobutanil inhibits the cytochrome 450 system, which in turn inhibits the ability to metabolize quercetin. Exposure to unmetabolized quercetin leads to a decrease in production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) in bees’ thorax, meaning that bees produced less energy for the muscles they use to fly.

Needless to say, it is precisely this type of complex interaction that environmental groups harshly criticize government regulators for not considering in risk assessments used to register toxic pesticides. These type of interrelated processes in turn effect the complex behavior of honey bees. Weaker flight muscles can interfere with pollinators’ ability to make it to or from sources of food and forage. It may even be a clue to colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon that has occurred with a subset of honey bee declines that is characterized by a dead hive absent of large numbers of dead bees.

In addition to flying, honey bees cluster in a ball over winter and use their wings to generate heat within the hive. It is not difficult to see how weaker wing muscles could affect the ability of honey bee colonies to maintain a warm enough internal hive temperature.

Although the effects of fungicides on pollinators have not been studied extensively, the research raises serious concerns for another chemical tool integral to conventional chemical-intensive agricultural and garden practices. A series of studies published in 2015 discovered what lead researcher Mia Park, PhD characterized as “deleterious properties of a class of pesticides that was, until recently, considered benign to bees.”

Myclobutanil is mainly used to control diseases like powdery mildew, which can affect a plant’s ability to flower and fruit. However, there are a wide variety of non and least-toxic alternative means to control the disease. Essential oils, particularly rosemary and thyme, are effective, as is neem oil. Potassium-based soaps like MPEDE are registered to control powdery mildew and permitted for use in certified organic production. And for home gardeners, spraying baking soda and water on plants in the early morning has been successfully used to prevent mildew. Fungus thrives in wet, high humidity environments with low air circulation, and in the majority of cases eliminating those conditions will alleviate the effects of the disease.

By thinking holistically, and considering and respecting the complex interactions between humans and our environment, we can transition to a point where a toxic pesticide like myclobutanil is not necessary. Organic gardening and agriculture, which nurtures soil health and biodiversity, and a systems plan to prevent potential pest problems, provides a path forward. By acknowledging the complexity of ecological interactions, and limiting pesticide use to only situations when all other options have been exhausted, we can stop disrupting biological systems and the dramatic declines in pollinator populations and other wildlife that continue to define food production in the modern industrial age.

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

Source: PNAS, Daily Mail

(Beyond Pesticides, February 27, 2017)  Texas has been dealing with a feral hog issue for many years, however recently Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller approved the use of a toxic rodenticide in an effort to control feral hog populations, a decision hunters and trappers oppose because the pesticide will poison prey and wreak havoc on ecosystems where the hogs live. The estimated population of the feral hog population is about 1.5 million in the state of Texas, where they can cause extensive damage to property, crops, and native wildlife.

Wild hogs have been considered to be one of the most destructive invasive species in the U.S. The feral hog population, close to six million, span 39 states and four Canadian provinces. Commissioner Miller, in announcing the widespread use of toxic pesticide referred to the problem as the “feral hog apocalypse.”

Damage caused by wild hogs has been estimated to reach well into the millions. Smithsonian Magazine has reported the annual damage caused by feral hog populations to be around $400 million. The Texas Parks and Wildlife website states that hogs are opportunistic omnivores.  Feral hogs enjoy eating domestic agricultural crops, such as corn, soybeans, peanuts, potatoes, watermelons and cantaloupe. They can cause damages to livestock by damaging habitat and grazing lands via rooting and trampling activities. They are notorious for damaging livestock feeders and destabilizing wetlands, springs, and creeks. Feral hogs do not actively hunt, though they have been known to be aggressive to smaller animals, such as fawns, young lambs, and kid goats.

For many years, Texas has relied on hunters and land owners to trap the feral hogs in order to control the populations and contain the damage they cause. Texas has given hunters a year round pass to hunt and capture these animals without limits. Some Texans even take to the skies in helicopters to shoot these pigs. Many hunters are not pleased with the Agriculture Commissioner’s decision to switch to a poison control method. In the past two days since Sid Miller’s decision hunters have petitioned the move and have gathered more than 1,200 signatures in opposition to the poison control.

“We don’t think poison is the way to go,” said Eydin Hansen, President of the Texas Hog Hunter Association, in an interview with north Texas’ local CBS news station. Mr. Hansen has been hunting hogs since he was 16, not only for sport, but to feed his family. He said, “It’s a way to feed your family. . .If this hog is poisoned, do I want to feed it to my family?  I can tell you, I don’t.”

Aside from the risk of eating a contaminated hog, hunters and conservationists are concerned that the rodenticide will inevitably contaminate non-target organisms. “If a hog dies, what eats it? Coyotes, buzzards. . .” said Mr. Hansen. “We’re gonna affect possibly the whole ecosystem.”  Once the animal dies from ingesting the toxic material, it could be eaten by other animals. The body will inevitably decompose, potentially releasing toxicants, those not metabolized as well as metabolites, into the environment.

The product approved by the Agricultural Commissioner is branded as Kaput Feral Hog Lure.  The active ingredient of the rodenticide formulation is the anticoagulant warfarin, a drug that is widely used to control rat and mice populations as well as prescribed by doctors to prevent blood clots. The rodenticide’s label explicitly states, “This product maybe toxic to fish, birds and other wildlife. Dogs and other predatory and scavenging mammals and birds might be poisoned if they feed upon animals that have eaten the bait.”

The secondary poisoning associated with the use of rodenticides in the outdoor environment will occur when unintended organisms consume the bait. Those advocating the use of the Kaput rodenticide focus on the manufacturer’s dispenser for the rodenticide that is specially designed to allow only hogs to feed on the bait. This, however, does not protect animals that feed on the poisoned hog. The bait also is designed to dye the flesh and muscle of the poisoned animal blue, notifying hunters that this animal has ingested the poison. Commissioner Miller makes a cost argument for pushing poison, saying it will save the state $900,000, which was earmarked for feral hog control research.

Beyond Pesticides stands behind the hunters on this matter. As in many other cases, there are safe sustainable alternatives that protect human and environmental health. Trapping and hunting present a sustainable option, incentivizing approaches that are a much safer option for population control without risks to the environment and human health.

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

Sources: CBS 11, Smithsonian, Texas Parks & Wildlife

(Beyond Pesticides, February 24, 2017) Over the last two weeks, both Oak Park and Evanston, IL have taken steps to repeal preemption of local authority to restrict community-wide pesticide use in the state of Illinois. The Village of Oak Park has approved a Resolution in Support of the Repeal of the State Pesticide Preemption, and the City of Evanston has approved a Resolution Urging the State of Illinois to Repeal Preemption of Local Regulation of Pesticides. Both of these actions urge the state of Illinois to repeal the preemption of local government regulation of pesticides and re-establish the right of local home rule governments to adopt pesticide restrictions on public and private land within their jurisdiction, as they deem appropriate.

The push to pass these resolutions grew out of hard work from passionate residents and activists. For the Village of Oak Park, a local advocacy group, Go Green Oak Park, reached out to Beyond Pesticides (see PAY Mail section) for assistance in talking to itslocal board about these issues. Peggy Mcgrath, a member of Go Green Oak Park, said about the issue: “Big corporations are calling more and more of the shots. To protect our government ‘ Of The People,’  we need grassroots involvement to encourage and support our congressional representatives to do the right thing for our children and our one sacred earth.” Evanston also galvanized forces through its local activists. Leslie Shad, a board member of Citizens’ Greener Evanston, stated to The Daily Northwestern, “Our own community should be able to manage the health and welfare of our own citizens.”… “It should be possible for the community to make some decisions for itself on the use of pesticides.”

Currently, 43 states restrict local government’s authority to regulate pesticide use further than state law. Preemption, the ability of one level of government to override laws of a lower level, has an important legal, political, and legislative history regarding pesticide regulation that provides helpful context for current efforts by local advocates.

The prevailing federal precedent was decided in 1991 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, ruled that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides more stringently than the federal government. States do, however, retain the authority to take away control from the local political subdivisions within its boundaries. 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.

In the 43 states where the Coalition was successful, localities can only address pesticide use on public property, and cannot restrict toxic pesticides on private properties. And while only seven states retain this right for localities, those that do show there is a desire for local authority to address pesticide use in a way that best reflects the values of a community’s residents and a locality’s unique environment and ecosystems. Takoma Park and Montgomery County (population one million) in Maryland passed ordinances banning the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes on all property, in favor of organic practices. Nearly 20 communities in Maine have restricted pesticide use on private property in some way, including comprehensive cosmetic pesticide restrictions passed in Ogunquit and South Portland. Restoring local authority to regulate pesticides is one of the most challenging, but also most important battles in pesticide reform.

Wondering how you can create change similar to that taking place in these communities? Take action! Advocating for the repeal of preemption in your state can be difficult – make sure you arm yourself with the right information. The same type of language that was used in the resolutions passed by Oak Park and Evanston can be used to fight preemption in your state. It takes work and commitment, but it can be done with some perseverance. It’s important to find support —friends, neighbors, and other people who share your concerns about environmental health. It’s also essential to reach out to your local elected officials and government. Beyond Pesticides has resources and factsheets available to help you organize in your community. You can also call (202-543-5450) or email ([email protected]) Beyond Pesticides for one-on-one consultation about the strategies you can take to effect change. You can also take a look at our Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies and sign up to promote positive change in your community.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 23, 2017) Male pesticide applicators who experienced a pesticide spill or another related accident are more likely to harbor changes in their DNA associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer, according to a recent paper published in the journal, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. While the relationship between pesticide exposure and prostate cancer is not new, this study adds to the growing body of evidence that high exposure to specific pesticides may lead to the development of prostate and other cancers. The analysis finds that after experiencing one of these exposure events, men are more likely to have higher DNA methylation of a gene linked with an increased risk of developing prostate cancer. DNA methylation is a form of gene regulation that, if disturbed, can result in gene expression changes that can cause cancer.

The researchers used data from the ongoing Agricultural Health Study (AHS), which is a long-term cohort study evaluating cancer and other health outcomes of pesticides applicators and their spouses in North Carolina and Iowa. This paper, High pesticide exposure events and DNA methylation among pesticide applicators in the agricultural health study, analyzed a sample size of 596 male pesticide applicators who underwent three phases of data collection for behavioral outcomes and pesticide exposure metrics. The participants completed a self-administered questionnaire in which they reported any high pesticide exposure events (HPEE), or “self-reported incidents of unusually high, non-specific exposure to pesticides.”

There are various mechanisms that may alter gene expression after pesticide exposure, including oxidative stress induction and endocrine disruption. These alterations and their impacts on disease development are still not clear, but, according to this study, the DNA changes and “subsequent gene inactivation has been consistently associated with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer among men in the U.S., after skin cancer, and, according to the American Cancer Society, is the third leading cause of cancer deaths in American men. Previous research using AHS data has identified an association between exposures to organophosphate pesticides and elevated prostate cancer risk in applicators with a family history of this specific cancer. And according to a 2013 study, “Three organophosphate insecticides were significantly associated with aggressive prostate cancer: fonofos, malathion and terbufos. The organochlorine insecticide aldrin is also associated with increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer.” Additionally, the herbicide, atrazine, is associated with an 8.4-fold increase in prostate cancer in men who work in atrazine factories and bag this toxic chemical.

The scientific literature confirms that farmworkers, their families, and their communities face elevated hazards from pesticide exposures, and existing farmworker data finds that the incidence rate of pesticide poisoning is extremely high. As a result of cumulative long-term exposures, farmworkers and their children, who often also work on the farm, are at risk of developing serious chronic health problems, such as neurological impairments, autism, cancer, and Parkinson’s disease. Other research finds that those with long-term exposure to 2,4-D have poor semen quality, and higher rates of birth defects.

Farmworkers, as usual, are on the front line of these impacts. Despite a recent important update to Worker Protection Standards, there is a need to drastically limit farmworker exposure to a wide range of toxic pesticides. Despite federal regulations to reduce pesticide exposure among farmworkers through personal protective equipment (PPE) and other measures, research conducted in farmworker communities show that such regulations are only partially enforced. High levels of pesticides continue to be detected among farmworker communities across the country, providing evidence that PPE and other controls do not go far enough to protect this highly exposed population. Ultimately, the key to making changes in the lives of farmworkers and farmworker families will be adequate enforcement of new provisions, and a transition to safer practices.

Our food choices have a direct effect on those who grow and harvest what we eat around the world. This is why certified organic food is the best choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. To learn about how buying organic food can help protect farmworkers, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience guide. For more information on the impact of pesticides to farmworkers and their families, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage.

Sources: Environmental Health News, Wiley Online Library

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 22, 2017) The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada, which regulates pesticides in the country, recently proposed changes to regulations under the Canada’s Pest Control Products Act (PCPA) that will curtail the ability of individuals living within the country to import pesticide products that do not meet Canada’s regulatory standards. Designed to address an existing loophole in the country’s law, the policy seeks to eliminate the practice of purchasing pesticide products from international online retailers that circumvent Canada’s more stringent pesticide regulations. While U.S. law does not contain a similar loophole, U.S. states that restrict pesticide sale and use more stringently than the federal government face a similar legal quagmre.

Current PCPA regulations establish a Personal Use Import Exemption that allows individuals to bring in small quantities of pest control products that are not registered for use in Canada, but do not pose an “unacceptable risk.” According to the Canadian government, the original intent of the exemption was to allow travelers to bring small quantities of pest control products, such as insect repellent, into Canada without “legally undermining the regulatory regime” under PCPA. However, with rise of online marketplaces, such as Amazon, the use of the exemption has been employed beyond its original intent, as Canadians routinely purchase illegal household pesticide products online and have them delivered through the mail. PMRA maintains that the abuse of “the current scope of the exemption poses risks to human health, the environment, and the integrity of the pest control products regulatory regime.” Given the widespread adoption of pesticide regulations that are more stringent than the federal Canadian standards throughout many provinces in Canada, it is also conceivable  that the new regulation may help stop the flow of pesticides not legal for use into local jurisdictions throughout the country. A similar concern exists in the U.S. when state standards are more stringent than federal U.S. regulations.

As state regulators consider standards more stringent than the federal government, the availability of pesticide products through online marketplaces continues to pose a challenge for state regulators. For example, the state pesticide law in California, as enforced by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), restricts the use of several pesticides otherwise allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available online. While the state has control over products physically sold within its borders, online retailers that offer pesticide products, like Amazon and Do It Yourself Pest Control, may create a way for consumers to circumvent state regulations and procure illegal pest control products with the state. Given the Trump Administration’s impending regulatory rollbacks, it is possible that more states will restrict pesticides more stringently than EPA. In the wake of an uptick in state regulation, new action will be required to ensure the public is not being exposed to illegal pesticide products obtained online in those states.

Canada is not the only country with a law that allows unregistered pesticides and their uses to legally be allowed into the country through a loophole. Beyond Pesticides has long criticized the U.S. practice of import tolerances, which essentially allow for pesticide residues on food or feed commodities coming in from other countries that are otherwise illegal, based on U.S. pesticide regulations. This allowance of hazardous pesticide residues banned, canceled, or not registered in the U.S. raises serious safety concerns. This scenario played itself out in 2012, when oranges imported from Brazil were found to have traces of the fungicide carbendazim, which is not registered for use on food within the U.S. At the time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) wrote a letter to the Juice Products Association, saying that it did not intend to take action or remove from the market any orange juice containing carbendazim, despite EPA evaluations that the chemical causes liver and thyroid effects in animal studies and has been classified as a probable human carcinogen.

In the documentary Circle of Poison, which features Beyond Pesticides’ Executive Director Jay Feldman, filmmakers take an indepth look at the how dangerous chemicals that are produced, but banned for use, in the U.S. make their way into U.S. through imported food. This is largely due to the practice of U.S. chemical corporations, whose chemicals fail to maintain EPA approval and registration at home, continuing to produce the dangerous chemicals and sell them abroad. Many of these pesticides are exported to the global south, and then reenter the food stream when crops that are grown in those countries ship back to the U.S., threatening public health and safety both at home and abroad.

Congress in 1991 attempted to address this issue with the Circle of Poison Prevention Act. Introduced by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the bill would have placed strict controls on exports of hazardous chemicals. The bill was ultimately unsuccessful, but represented a firm acknowledgement of the loopholes in U.S. laws that allow the public to be exposed to otherwise illegal chemicals through importation.

The use of banned or highly restricted chemicals in food production is still a common practice in much of the developing world from which food is routinely imported into the U.S. By purchasing food commodities with legal tolerances for pesticides no longer used or restricted in the U.S., consumers inadvertently support agricultural production practices in other countries that are associated with the range of adverse effects as noted in the Pesticide Induced-Disease Database, including poor labor practices and environmental degradation. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically in the U.S. and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use.

To avoid potentially dangerous chemical residues in food, whose origins may be domestic or international, choose organic. The most important organic food products to purchase, especially for children, are those that are consumed in great quantity, such as juice. Purchasing organic juice is particularly important to reduce their pesticide exposure. Research has shown that switching children to an organic diet drastically reduces their exposure. For more information, visit our Organic Food page.

Source: CBC News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 21, 2016) The Agriculture Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill last week that will eliminate protections from toxic pesticides for the nation’s waterways. The bill now moves on to the full House for a vote and the public has an opportunity to let Representatives hear the concerns about weakening local protection of waterways from toxic pesticides. HR 953, The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (code for the sponsors and supporters as legislation to eliminate environmental protection of water quality), is the committee’s latest effort in a multi-year string of attempts to rollback common sense protections for the public waterways all Americans use for swimming, fishing, and other forms of recreation. The bill would repeal the Clean Water Act requirement that those who apply pesticides to waterways, with an exemption for farm use pesticides not directly deposited into waterways, obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Last May, at the height of fears over the Zika epidemic, the same Committee ushered through the same bill under another misleading name, The Zika Vector Control Act. Pensive lawmakers and the public saw through the ruse, and the bill was defeated. But, like previous iterations, including the 2015 Sensible Environmental Protection Act, lawmakers ostensibly grandstanding against over-regulation are, in fact, advancing the economic interests of toxic chemical producers and users.

A 2009 decision issued by the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of National Cotton Council et al. v. EPA, held that pesticides applied to waterways should be considered pollutants under federal law and regulated under the Clean Water Act. Prior to the decision, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Bush Administration, had allowed the weaker and more generalized standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to be followed. This allowed pesticides to be discharged into U.S. waterways without any federal oversight, as FIFRA does not require tracking such applications and assessing the adverse effects on local ecosystems.

In a statement, the House Agriculture Committee praised itself for working to eliminate “costly and duplicative burdens,” However, the facts do not bear this out. Under current law, pesticide applicators only have to fill out one permit, and the permit simply lets authorities know what is sprayed and when it is sprayed. This information is needed to understand whether there are potential dangers to sensitive aquatic ecosystems. It also informs the public on the chemicals being used in their waterways. Pesticide regulations under FIFRA do not achieve these protections, and despite the 2009 ruling, most agricultural pesticide applications are exempt from CWA permit requirements.

To be clear, HR 953 would:
(1) undermine federal authority to protect U.S. waters under the Clean Water Act,
(2) allow spraying of toxic chemicals into waterways without local and state oversight,
(3) not reduce claimed burdens to farmers since there is currently no burden as there is no real economic cost and agricultural activities are exempt, and
(4) contaminate drinking water sources and harm aquatic life.

Already, nearly 2,000 waterways are impaired by pesticide contamination and many more have simply not been tested. The potentially high cost of public health problems, environmental clean-up efforts, and irreversible ecological damage that can result from unchecked, indiscriminate pollution of waterways is being ignored by opponents of CWA regulations.

Beyond Pesticides continues to fight to prevent water pollution and harmful agricultural practices. Visit our Threatened Waters page, and learn how organic land management practices protect waterways in the article, Organic Land Management and the Protection of Water Quality. Do your part! Please send a letter to your Congressional Representative urging him/her to reject HR953, and then follow-up with a phone call to their office.

Source: House Ag Committee PR

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 17, 2017) We’re only two months away from our 35^th National Pesticide Forum! Join us for Healthy Hives, Healthy Lives, Healthy Land: Ecological and Organic Strategies for Regeneration, held at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs in Minneapolis, Minnesota on April 28-29, 2017.

Register Today

Get the Early Bird Discount (available until March 28)! As an Early Bird buyer, you can get a general rate for $40, a student rate for $20, or a business rate for $170. Scholarships are also available. All ticket price rates include organic meals: on Friday, organic beer, wine, and hors d’oeuvre; on Saturday, organic breakfast, lunch, and dinner, plus organic beer and wine at the evening reception. For more details about registration, click here.

Background

The Forum offers a unique opportunity during a critical time in our nation’s history to chart a course that upholds principles, values, policies and practices that protect health and the environment. The Forum brings together speakers on the latest science on pesticides, from bee-toxic neonicotinoids to glyphosate, contrasted with practitioners utilizing organic management practices in agriculture and parks, and on athletic fields and rangeland. In sum, the Forum seeks to help hone public understanding of the hazards of pesticides and the emerging science on adverse effects, while delving into local policy changes that are driving pesticide bans and incentivizing ecological and regenerative practices. The Forum includes a broad range of speakers and collaborators, and will provide an opportunity for grassroots advocates, scientists, policy makers, and land managers to discuss effective strategies and practices that work collectively for a sustainable future.

Program Highlights

Forum attendees have the opportunity to join us for a tour on Friday, April 28 from 12:00pm to 4:00pm. Tentative tour options include an immersive beehive tour and an educational walkthrough of a student-driven organic farm. Spots on the tour are limited, so register today to reserve your place.

We will be hosting workshops on the second day of the Forum that will touch on a variety of topics, including environmental health and pesticides, pollinator protection, protecting Midwest watersheds, organic management (including lawns, agricultural landscapes, and structures), seed sovereignty and organic seed availability, soil health, local organizing, and litigation successes to protect human health and the environment.

Speaker Highlights

• Vera Krischik, PhD is faculty in the Entomology Department in the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Minnesota. Since 1998, Dr. Krischik has been director of CUES: Center for Urban Ecology and Sustainability, which promotes sustainable landscapes and conservation of beneficial insects. In 2010 and 2014, Dr. Krischik received an LCCMR grant on mitigating pollinator decline.
• Jeff Moyer is a world renowned authority in organic agriculture. His expertise includes organic crop production systems with a focus on weed management, cover crops, crop rotations, equipment modification and use, and facilities design. In September 2015, Jeff was appointed as Executive Director of Rodale Institute after spending the last four decades at the Institute, helping countless farmers make the transition from conventional, chemical-based farming to organic methods.
• David Oien is a co-founder and the President of Timeless Seeds, Inc., a certified organic pulse crop and heritage grain company that is featured in the book Lentil Underground by Liz Carlisle (who will also be speaking at the forum)! Timeless Seeds contracts with dozens of organic farmers in Montana and markets its products across America to customers like Blue Apron, Eden Foods, Stanford University Dining Services, high end and farm-to-table restaurants, and hundreds of natural food stores including the Wedge and the Lake Winds Coop stores in the Twin Cities.
• Amy Van Saun is an attorney in Center for Food Safety (CFS)’s Portland, Oregon office. As part of CFS’s legal team, Amy works on CFS’s active docket of impact litigation and high-profile cases on issues related to pollinators and pesticides, organics, genetic engineering, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs or factory farms), aquaculture, and food labeling.

Stay Tuned

Check back as we add information about speakers and sessions for the upcoming conference.

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

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

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

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 16, 2017) On Tuesday, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the Trump administration for reversing a February 10 rule, published in the Federal Register, that designated the Rusty Patched Bumblebee an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The reversal  of the endangered species listing establishes a new review period until March 21. As to their reasoning for such a sudden change, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) cited the White House memo instructing federal agencies to postpone the effective date of any regulations that had been published in the Federal Register, but not yet in effect. As discussed several days ago, the order by the Trump administration means that despite FWS’ determination that without federal action the species will likely become endangered, the Trump administration has 60 days to evaluate the decision for the purpose of “reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that FWS violated the notice and comment requirements of public rulemaking for the delay on the bumblebee listing. In the lawsuit, NRDC states that, “Without valid explanation, opportunity for public input, or other legally required process, FWS delayed the effective date of the listing, denying the bee the essential protections of the law.” And, according to Rebecca Riley, a senior attorney for NRDC, in an interview with Mother Jones, “We don’t think this is just a freeze – it’s an opportunity for the administration to reconsider and perhaps revoke the rule entirely.”

The Rusty Patched Bumblebee became the first bumblebee federally designated as endangered under ESA, when the final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 11 and had been scheduled to take effect this past Friday. Although the Rusty Patched Bumblebee was once widespread throughout the United States and parts of Canada, it declined dramatically in the 1990’s, and now their populations are estimated to be less than 10% of what they once were. Threats to the rusty patched bumble bee include diseases introduced by commercial bumble bees that are not free of pathogens and are released near wild populations. Climate change plays a part, along with habitat loss, from industrial agriculture and development that decreases wild lands. There is also an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that neonicotinoid insecticides, working either individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators.

According to FWS’s website on the Rusty Patched Bumblebee, “Neonicotinoids have been strongly implicated as the cause of the decline of bees, in general, and for rusty patched bumble bees, specifically. The introduction of neonicotinoid use and the precipitous decline of this bumble bee occurred during the same time.” Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. These chemicals are used extensively in chemical-intensive agriculture, especially as seed treatments for corn and soybeans. The case of the neonicotinoid use exemplifies two critical problems with current registration procedures and risk assessment methods for pesticides: the reliance on industry-funded science that contradicts peer-reviewed studies and the insufficiency of current risk assessment procedures to account for sublethal effects of pesticides.

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

For these reasons and many others, Beyond Pesticides works to promote the widespread transition of conventional farmland to organic production. Organic law requires farmers to foster soil health, effecting a strategy that enhances ecological balance and prevents pest problems. Because of these factors, organic systems plan practices increase plant health, diversity of pest predators, and resiliency to withstand pests and diseases.

Without federal protection, the Rusty Patched Bumblebee needs concerned communities throughout the country to step in and pass policies that will protect these imperiled pollinators. With one in three bites of food reliant on bees, other insects, and birds for pollination, the decline in pollinators due to pesticides, and other human-made causes, demands immediate action. For more on this and what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’ BEE Protective webpage.

Sources: Reuters, Christian Science Monitor

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 15, 2017) Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Monsanto, charging that its product Roundup caused their non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL), have cited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) collusion with the company to block the agency from concluding that the manufacturer’s product Roundup causes cancer, according to investigative reporter Carey Gilliam, writing in the Huffington Post. The filing states that EPA made an effort “to protect Monsanto’s interests and unfairly aid the agrichemical industry.”Glyphosate has been linked to cancer  in the independent scientific literature and is listed as a probable human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Issues of suppression have also been uncovered, as Monsanto’s lawyers have filed claims to prevent information  turned over to plaintiffs’ lawyers during discovery from inclusion on the public record.

This is just the latest development in a variety of lawsuits aimed at Monsanto, including a challenge by a peach farmer over the illegal spraying of the herbicide Dicamba and the recent victory by the state of California to list glyphosate products as cancer causing. In the current case, a multitude of personal injury claims made by those suffering from, or that have lost loved ones to, NHL have been condensed into a class action suit that will be tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This allows discovery to move forward as one large class.

The filing, made last week by plaintiffs’ attorneys, asks the court to compel the deposition of Jess Rowland, who served as deputy division director in EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and directly managed the work of scientists charged with assessing the human health effects of exposure to pesticides, including glyphosate. The motion accuses Mr. Rowland of playing “political conniving games with science” in favor of Monsanto’s interests, and argues the agency’s willingness to promote industry interests over protecting public health. According to the motion, “The Plaintiffs have a pressing need for Mr. Rowland’s testimony to confirm his relationship with Monsanto and EPA’s substantial role in protecting the Defendant’s business.” It goes on to claim that, “Mr. Rowland operated under Monsanto’s influence to cause EPA’s position and publications to support Monsanto’s business…” During Mr. Rowland’s tenure at EPA, the agency issued its finding that glyphosate meets its acceptable risk standards, despite IARC’s position to the contrary based on the scientific literature. Up until last year, Mr. Rowland  also chaired the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), which determined glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

Based on Monsanto’s previous efforts to keep documents in this case from being released publicly, it is likely that the agrichemical company will file a motion in opposition to Mr. Rowland’s deposition. Monsanto has already sought to keep documents associated with this case secret, having asked the federal judge presiding over the case to block plaintiffs’ attorneys from including documents they receive during the discovery process from being used as exhibits in court filings, so as to keep them out of the hands of the public and the media. Monsanto claims that releasing these documents may be an effort to “try this case in the court of public opinion,” an act the company claims “is not in the public interest.” This, despite the fact that millions of people around the world are exposed to glyphosate on a daily basis, and advocates maintain that they have a right to know what kind of relationship the company has with the government agency that is supposed to look out for its health and safety.

The chemical at issue in this case, glyphosate, has historically been touted as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals by EPA and industry and is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen indicates that glyphosate is anything but safe, as the ranking represents the highest order carcinogen when no human data is available —and since chemicals are not tested on humans, a higher ranking  is rare. According to IARC, Group 2A means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In its report, the agency did note that glyphosate has been linked DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which is the same type of cancer that plaintiffs in the current lawsuit are suffering, or have lost someone who suffered, from.

Since the release of the IARC determination, Monsanto has made several efforts to discredit the scientific findings of this well respected, international body, as detailed in the documents associated with this case. In a February 8 filing, Monsanto submitted a court brief arguing that, “The IARC classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen is not relevant to the question of whether or not Roundup caused the plaintiffs’ cancers.” It goes on to claim that “IARC’s approach is “less rigorous” than EPA’s in evaluating scientific evidence, and IARC’s conclusions are “scientifically unreliable,”” a conclusion that is unfounded, to say the least.

In a separate document filed on February 10, Monsanto went a step further, claiming that there is no evidence that the products at issue are “defective or unreasonably dangerous,” and “no evidence of carcinogenicity in glyphosate or Roundup.”

Ms. Gillam, Research Director for U.S. Right to Know, uncovers more to the story, pointing out that, as the evidence against Monsanto continues to mount, Congress may be stepping in to curtail class action lawsuits. Just last week, legislation was introduced by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to limit the ability of individuals to challenge powerful corporations in court with the stated goal of “diminish[ing] abuses in class action and mass tort litigation.” Entitled the “Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017,” the bill will apply to pending as well as future class action lawsuits. Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, believes that the bill will have terrible ramifications when it comes to protecting individual interests, as it “is designed to ensure that no class action could ever be brought or litigated for anyone.” She continues, claiming that the legislation “would obliterate civil rights, antitrust, consumer, essentially every class action in America.”

The mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards is piling up and environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or ban the use of the chemical. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through the Tools for Change webpage. This page is designed to help activists and other concerned citizens organize around a variety of pesticide issues on the local, state, and national level. Learn how to organize a campaign and talk to your neighbors about pesticides with our factsheets.

Another way to avoid glyphosate and other harmful pesticides is to support organic agriculture and  eat organic food. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated for organic management practices as a means to foster biodiversity, and research shows  that organic farmers do a better job of protecting biodiversity than their chemically-intensive counterparts. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and biotechnology, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and other beneficial insects, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective. For more information on why organic is the right choice, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture webpage.

Source: Huffington Post

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 14, 2017) Less than one month after the Rusty Patched Bumblebee’s listing as ‘threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Trump Administration has reversed the order. On his first day in office, President Trump issued a memo instructing federal agencies to postpone the effective date of any regulations that had been published in the Federal Register, but not yet in effect. This order means that despite FWS’ determination that without federal action the species will likely become endangered, the Trump administration has 60 days to evaluate the decision for the purpose of “reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy.”

Advocates for the imperiled species are urging the administration to allow the Rusty Patched Bumblebee to officially become the first bumblebee federally recognized under ESA. Although the Rusty Patched was once widespread throughout the United States and parts of Canada, it declined dramatically in the 1990’s, and now their populations are estimated to be less than 10% of what they once were.  On its website, FWS lists a number of threats to the Rusty Patched, including pesticides, habitat loss, disease, climate change, and intensive farming practices.

Insecticides known as neonicotinoids, introduced into chemical-intensive agricultural practices in the late 1990s, have seen use increase significantly over the last several decades, to the detriment of both managed and wild pollinator populations. These chemicals been implicated as a key contributor to the recent global decline in pollinator diversity. Neonicotinoids affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and eventual death. When they do not result in acute toxicity and immediate death, sublethal exposure causes changes in bee reproductive, navigation, and foraging ability. Neonicotinoid exposure impairs both detoxification mechanisms and immune responses, rendering bees more susceptible to viruses, parasites, and other diseases, and leading to devastating bee losses.

When asked by NBC News, the U.S. Department of Interior did not immediately respond whether the Rusty Patched Bumblebee’s status under the new administration would change. Despite the Obama Administration’s lackluster efforts to address the root cause of pollinator decline, and opt for a strategy that includes additional research and a focus on habitat, the administration did give a platform for pollinator protection efforts at the Presidential level. A revocation will be met with intense criticism by environmental groups, as it would be seen as a gift to special interests like the American Farm Bureau Federation, which promotes pesticide use. The Farm Bureau told NBC news that it opposed the Rusty Patch listing and that ESA “imposes far-reaching regulatory burdens.”

While attacks against ESA listings are likely to become more frequent over the next several years, it is critical that consumers are educated on the importance of wild pollinators, both to agricultural productivity and for their intrinsic value. Indeed, there is a strong argument that it would cost more to not protect species like the Rusty Patch than to allow them to go extinct. A 2016 UN report warning of shortages in global food supplies should pollinator numbers decline any further estimates that  pollinators worldwide contribute between $235 and $577 billion in agricultural productivity annually. In addition to their value in dollars, every species is like a book in the library of life, and losing a species is like burning that book. It means we will forever miss out, and never truly understand how its story connects with the chronicles of life on Earth.

Help Beyond Pesticides show appreciation for both wild and managed pollinators by taking local action. Get involved at the community level to pass policies that protect imperiled pollinators. Right now, without federal protection, the Rusty Patched Bumblebee needs concerned communities throughout the country to step in and makes changes that give it a fighting chance. Use our resources and educational materials, including our BEE Protective doorknob hangers to get the word out. And be sure follow Beyond Pesticides’ ongoing series celebrating unsung wild pollinator heroes through the Polli-NATION campaign.

Source: NBC News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 13, 2017)  A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and others  attributes the reduced number of overwintering monarch butterflies –a reduction of 27% from last year—to herbicide use and other factors. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in conjunction with U.S. and Mexican environmental groups, has been leading the effort in tracking monarch butterflies.  Their recently released 2016-2017 study concluded that the population of monarch butterflies decreased 27 percent from last year’s population, which had marked an increase from dangerously low levels over the previous three years.  Overall, this marks an 80 percent decline in monarch population from the 1990’s.  Researchers have estimated that within 20 years the monarch butterfly migration could collapse altogether.

The study was conducted in December of 2016 when the colonies of monarchs are expected to be at their peak population in Mexico.  Monarch populations are gauged by the area of land they inhabit, rather than counts of butterflies.   Thirteen butterfly colonies were observed, recorded and tracked using geographic information systems software.  The researchers found that the butterflies occupied 2.91 hectares of forest, which re

presents a 27.43 percent decrease in population compared to the 4.01 hectares of forest they inhabited during the 2015-2016 migration season.

A combination of factors have led to the declining populations of monarch butterflies.  A series of extreme weather events in Mexico last fall are partly to blame for this seasons decline.  Unusually cold and wet weather last March of 2016 limited the success of the butterflies return migration back to the United States and Canada.  Habitat loss and illegal logging operations in Mexico’s Oyamel forest are also being looked at as a possible driver for monarch population decline.

Monarch butterflies lay their eggs on milkweed that grows wild, and reduced sources of milkweed pose a threat to monarch populations.  The use of genetically engineered crops allows the use of glyphosate in cropland, which is an important factor in the decline of the monarch.

In a press release from the Mexico’s WWF branch, Omar Vidal stated, “The monarch migration is a phenomenon like no other. But now, it’s imperiled by forces the monarchs themselves cannot control. The reduction in the area of forest they occupied this year –most probably due to the high mortality caused by storms and cold weather last year— is a clear reminder for the three countries that they must step up actions to protect breeding, feeding and migratory habitat.” Mr. Vidal continued, “We cannot control the climate, but we can do much better in eradicating illegal logging in the reserve and tackling habitat loss in the U.S. and Canada. But, even if Mexico’s overwintering sites never lose another tree, without food and habitat along the migration routes the forests will soon bid farewell to their final orange and black-winged tenant.”

Monarch butterflies are one of many important pollinator species that have experienced drastic declines in recent years. Along with threats from glyphosate use and habitat loss, the use of neonoicotinoid pesticides has also been linked to monarch declines. In addition to monarch butterflies, honey bees and wild bees have also been experiencing a drastic decline in numbers  that has been linked to the prevalent use of neonicotinoids. A recent report issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) states that certain neonicotinoid insecticides pose an unacceptable hazard to honey bees. The EFSA report concludes that systemic contamination of neonicotinoid-treated crops, neonicotinoid dust exposure, and contaminated nectar and pollen contributes to declines in honey bees and weakens their hives. With one in three bites of food reliant on bees and other insects for pollination, the decline of honey bees and other pollinators due to pesticides and other man-made causes demands immediate action. Beyond Pesticides has petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend the use of bee toxic chemicals pending a full review of their effects on pollinators.

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

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity, World Wildlife Fund

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 10, 2017) On Wednesday, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), along with Public Citizen and the Communications Workers of America, sued the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in an attempt to block an executive order (EO) mandating that federal agencies zero out costs to regulated entities, while ignoring benefits to the public, environment, and natural resources. The so-called “Two for One” order requires agencies to propose the repeal of two regulations for every new regulation that is proposed.

The Executive Order in question mandates that new rules have a net zero cost to regulated entities in fiscal year 2017, with no mechanism for taking into account the value of benefits they provide in the form of public protection. According to the complaint, “the Executive Order directs agencies to disregard the benefits of new and existing rules—including benefits to consumers, to workers, to people exposed to pollution, and to the economy—even when the benefits far exceed costs. The Executive Order’s direction to federal agencies to zero out costs to regulated industries, while entirely ignoring benefits to the Americans whom Congress enacted these statutes to protect, will force agencies to take regulatory actions that harm the people of this nation.”

The suit names as defendants President Trump and Mark Sandy, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB is charged with implementing the executive order and has already issued interim guidance to enforce its terms. The suit also names the current or acting secretaries and directors of numerous executive departments and agencies. The plaintiffs ask that the court find the order unconstitutional and bar agencies from implementing the order. Plaintiffs claim that agencies cannot lawfully comply with the EO, as doing so would violate several laws under which the agencies operate, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The complaint also shows how programs implementing many major federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substance Control Act, and the Clean Air Act, could be negatively affected by the EO. For example, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was enacted to halt and reverse species loss in the United States, was written with little emphasis on cost. The law currently mandates that the cost of designating critical habitat should be considered only in tandem with the benefits of creating that habitat, placing the priority on species preservation. The new EO would change the spirit and intent of that law, however, by mandating that the cost of designating critical habitat be considered in isolation from the requirements of the ESA. This would force agencies to make determinations that are inconsistent with the underlying statutes, resulting in violations of existing federal law. Additionally, as stated in the complaint, the EO may force agencies to “make an impermissible and arbitrary choice –whether to issue a new standard at the cost of the loss of benefits of two existing standards.” Plaintiffs feel that abiding by the EO could constitute an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion under the APA and other governing statutes. The complaint states, quoting the decision in Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., “In the APA, Congress directed federal agencies to undertake reasoned and evidence-based decision-making when exercising their delegated authority to promulgate rules. An agency must consider the factors that Congress has directed it to consider and cannot ‘rel[y] on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.’”

It is important to note that regulations are typically issued as required by law –laws that were passed in response to existing needs. All regulations undergo a process of public notice and comment, and reflect the agency’s position based on consideration of public input. According to a joint press release written by the plaintiffs, “A draft 2016 report to Congress from the White House OMB estimates that the annual benefits from all major regulations over the past 10 years for which agencies monetized both benefits and costs were between $269 billion and $872 billion, while the costs were between $74 billion and $110 billion, in 2014 dollars. OMB’s 2005 report to Congress estimated that major rules from the previous 10 years provided annual benefits of $69.6 billion to $276.8 billion, while costing between $34.8 billion and $39.4 billion.” Thus, the benefits of major regulations already outweigh the costs associated.

This case is just the latest development in efforts to combat the Trump Administration’s assault on the environment. Earlier this week, a nonpartisan group of 447 former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees united to write a strongly-worded letter urging the Senate to block Scott Pruitt’s confirmation as EPA Administrator. Citing EPA’s “fundamental obligation to act in the public’s interest based on current law and the best available science,” the group, whose members served under both Democratic and Republican presidents, calls into question Pruitt’s qualifications, given his longstanding record of opposing “longstanding tenets of U.S. environmental law.”

Action Items

Beyond Pesticides urges citizens to call or email elected representatives in Congress to voice concerns about the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine environmental protections and public health. Beyond Pesticides advocates acting by calling or emailing elected representatives in Congress to let them know that the Trump administration’s silencing of EPA will not be tolerated and demanding transparency and science-based standards going forward. Environmentalists also encourage following the lead of the 447 former EPA employees by calling Senators to tell them to vote against the confirmation of Scott Pruitt to Administrator of EPA.

Source(s): NRDC, Public Citizen, The Washington Post

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 9, 2017) The failure of the U.S. pesticide regulatory system to protect marijuana users was highlighted as Health Canada announced Tuesday that it would begin conducting random pesticide residue testing of marijuana products to ensure that only registered products are being used in medical marijuana production. This comes on the heels of voluntary recalls in 2016 by two licensed Canadian cannabis producers due to the presence of the prohibited pesticides bifenazate, myclobutanil, and pyrethrins in or on marijuana products. Especially concerning is the detection of myclobutanil, a powerful fungicide that, when heated, converts to the hazardous gas hydrogen cyanide. The detection of these toxic chemicals in medical marijuana products is distressing since many users have compromised immune systems or health conditions that make them more susceptible to toxic chemicals.

Moves by several states in the U.S. to curb illegal pesticide use in marijuana contain significant pitfalls and loopholes that allow contaminated cannabis to enter the market, where it threatens public health. Without examination of residues in inhaled, ingested, or absorbed cannabis, the user’s health is not protected by pesticide registration addressing other uses. In addition, environmental impacts associated with growing practices are generally ignored.

On January 9^th, following the voluntary recalls in 2016 by the cannabis producers Organigram and Mettrum, Health Canada issued a statement saying the “voluntary recall had been expanded to include dried marijuana and cannabis oil produced between Feb. 1, 2016, and Dec. 16, 2016.” At the time of this statement, the department stated that it had “not received any adverse reaction reports for products sold by Organigram Inc.” However, after an inquiry by CBC News, Health Canada acknowledged that it had in fact received an adverse reaction report by this date and “regrets this error.” Additionally, by the end of January, Health Canada had received three adverse reaction reports from Organigram customers and 15 adverse reaction reports from Mettrum customers affected by the recalls. Reported symptoms included nausea, vomiting, weight loss, and respiratory track infection.

According to Health Canada, as of February 1, 2017, there are “13 registered pesticides approved by Pest Management Regulatory Agency for use on cannabis (marijuana) that is produced commercially indoors.” These include multiple insecticidal soaps, biological fungicides, and mycoinsecticides, or insecticides containing live fungi.

The issue of cannabis contamination is extremely timely considering that in November 2016, medical marijuana initiatives were approved in a. As states continue to legalize the production of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes, regulations governing its cultivation may allow the application of pesticides untested for use in the plant’s production, raising safety issues for patients and consumers. In the absence of federal regulations governing pesticides in cannabis production, the use of pesticides not registered by EPA and not designated as “minimum risk” is understood to be illegal. However, some states interpret the absence of specific labels to allow toxic pesticides like those found by Health Canada.

Several states, including New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, have adopted policies that prohibit all federally registered pesticides –that is, those not considered “minimum risk”— in the absence of federal oversight. Other states have taken the position that state policy is unnecessary, since EPA, due to cannabis’s narcotic status by the federal government, has not registered any pesticides for marijuana production, and unregistered pesticide use is illegal. As more states legalize marijuana use, it is crucial that any new growing standards reflect a systems-based organic approach.

A report on the prevalence of pesticide contamination in the medical cannabis supply chain in California was released this past fall by the company, Steep Hill, a global leader in cannabis testing and analytics. Their results reveal that 84% of samples tested positive for pesticide residues, a number significantly higher than experts had previously expected. The risks from myclobutanil residues on products include exposure to the decomposition products carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and nitrogen oxides, which form when heated.

While the issue of illegal pesticide use in states with legalized recreational marijuana markets has become an area of concern for consumers and public health groups in recent years, the Steep Hill data is significant in that it looks specifically at the medical marijuana market and the impact pesticide-contaminated marijuana may have on medical marijuana consumers, who are often individuals suffering from chronic disease or illness. A California law intended to address this issue, the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, was passed in 2015, but its oversight provisions, which include mandatory testing, will not go into effect until 2018, leaving California consumers to fend for themselves when it comes to determining whether their cannabis has been contaminated by pesticides.

Implementing safety measures for cannabis production will ensure the sustainable growth of a new agricultural industry, and lead to the protection of public health. The federal government cannot conduct its normal registration review of pesticides used on cannabis, given the crop’s illegal federal status.

Beyond Pesticides continues to encourage states to take a stronger approach to regulating this industry, so that it blazes an agricultural path protecting its most sensitive at-risk users. Three elements must be passed and enforced in order to do so. They are:
1. A prohibition on the use of federally registered pesticides on cannabis;
2. Allowance of pesticides exempt from federal registration, but not those that are only exempt from tolerances and;
3. Requirements for an organic system plan that focuses on sustainable practices and only minimum risk products as a last resort.

For more information on what states are doing in the face of a hands-off federal policy to assess the dangers of pesticides used in the production of cannabis, read Beyond Pesticides’ report, Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options.

Sources: CBC News, Health Canada

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 8, 2017) As the controversy surrounding the Trump Administration and GOP Congress’s plan for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continues to grow, a nonpartisan group of 447 former EPA employees united to write a strongly-worded letter urging the Senate to block Scott Pruitt’s confirmation as EPA Administrator. Citing EPA’s “fundamental obligation to act in the public’s interest based on current law and the best available science,” the group, whose members served under both Democratic and Republican presidents, calls into question Pruitt’s qualifications, given his longstanding record of opposing “longstanding tenets of U.S. environmental law.” This letter is just the latest in the constantly evolving debate over the need for environmental protection.

In the past two weeks, the EPA has been under attack by the Trump Administration and Republican lawmakers who would continue to undermine the environmental protections required for clean water, clean air, and healthy natural resources. Myron Ebell, head of Trump’s EPA transition team, suggested last week that the agency’s already understaffed workforce be cut from about 15,000 employees to 5,000, with potentially more cuts to follow. Trump himself then issued an executive order proposing that for every new regulation promulgated, two must be repealed, an initiative that could have a dramatic and devastating effect on environmental protections. Perhaps inspired by the blatant attacks by party leadership on the EPA, this week saw freshman Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) introduce a bill aimed at dissolving the EPA completely, demonstrating GOP willingness to discard more nearly 50 years of environmental progress in the United States.

While, as documented by Beyond Pesticides, EPA’s regulation of pesticides is flawed, EPA plays a critical role in reviewing science and implementing laws protecting human health and the environment. Science itself has been under attack by the Trump Administration, as evidenced by its issuance of scientific grant and hiring freezes at EPA and other agencies nationwide, along with a ban on science communications through social media platforms. The grant freezes affected scientists working on a multitude of important issues, including those set to perform critical research on pollinator declines. The grant freezes have since been retracted –likely due, at least in part, to public outcry. The agency, under Trump’s transition team, also made a statement in January that scientists will now face an unspecified vetting process before sharing their work outside the agency. However, this kind of review is at odds with EPA’s own scientific integrity policy, which “prohibits all EPA employees, including scientists, managers, and other Agency leadership, from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”

With the confirmation of Scott Pruitt still pending, many, including the authors of the letter, are calling on the Senate to slow down Trump’s assault on the environment by blocking his pick to lead the EPA. Highlighting the “tremendous progress” the agency has made to ensure that “every American has clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and uncontaminated land on which to live, work and play” the authors conjure up images of cities such as Beijing, where citizens often wear face masks to protect themselves from the air pollution, to drive home their point that EPA’s gains over the past fifty years should not be taken for granted. They also point to preparation for “emerging new threats” like climate change and the need to address current gaps in protections, such as those that led to the Flint, MI water crisis, as key functions of the agency that might be lost under Pruitt. In fact, Pruitt’s “reluctance to accept and act on the strong scientific consensus on climate change” is the former EPA employees’ greatest concern about his potential appointment.

Opposition to Pruitt is not unfounded. In his role as Oklahoma Attorney General, the letter points out, Pruitt went to “disturbing lengths to advance the views and interests of business,” often siding with the fossil fuel industry in actions against the EPA. Their concern is that Pruitt “does not share the vision or agree with the underlying principles of environmental law,” poses a huge threat to the future of environmental progress in the United States, and would take us further away from, not closer to, achieving the environmental protections we need and deserve in order to ensure public health and safety. While Beyond Pesticides and others have resorted to suing EPA to force the agency to do its job, Pruitt did the opposite, suing EPA to prevent the agency from enforcing the law.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a federal agency with an annual budget of just over $8 billion with 15,376 employees as of 2016. Among its responsibilities is implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a regulatory and licensing law that oversees the registration of pesticides and their use. The Trump Administration plans to cut more than $800 million from the EPA’s budget, an alarming 10% for those who value the implementation of environmental laws. According to Ken Kimmell, President of the Union of Concerned Scientists, “the inevitable consequence of budget cuts of that magnitude would be a reversal of about the last 50 years of improvements in air quality, improvements in water quality, and greater safety from chemicals that cause diseases in people.” Additionally, the director of the European Union’s (EU) Environmental Agency, Hans Bruyninckx, recently spoke out about Trump’s climate skeptic policies, saying that there’s “not a snowball’s chance in hell” of containing global warming without US cooperation.

Environmentalists advise remembering the environmental tragedies of decades past and taking preemptive action to stop the Trump Administration and Scott Pruitt. Beyond Pesticides urges citizens to act now by calling or emailing elected representatives in Congress to let them know that the Trump administration’s silencing of EPA will not be tolerated and demanding transparency and science-based standards going forward. Environmentalists advocate following the lead of the 447 former EPA employees by calling Senators to tell them to vote against the confirmation of Scott Pruitt to Administrator of EPA.

Source: Washington Post, Huffington Post, Bill Moyers

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

(Beyond Pesticides, February 7, 2017) After years of legal battle, the Colorado Court of Appeals last week affirmed a ruling that Colorado rancher, James Hopper, must serve two days in jail and pay a $7,500 fine for spraying pesticides that drifted unto his neighbor’s farm in violation of a 2012 court order protecting his neighbors. In 2012, organic farmers Rosemary Bilchak and her husband Gordon MacAlpine, were granted a permanent injunction prohibiting pesticide applications within 150 feet of the property line in order to reduce pesticide drift. Last week’s decision bolsters a legal precedent that wafting pesticides can constitute a trespass against which adjacent landowners and people with health sensitivities are protected.

The legal battle began in 2011 when Mr. Hopper obtained his Colorado pesticide applicator’s license and applied the adulticide Fyfanon, which contains the organophosphate insecticide malathion, to kill mosquitoes on his property. However, the pesticide drifted onto Ms. Bilchak and Mr. MacAlpine’s organic vegetable farm. In 2012, a District Court Judge ruled that they have a right not to have their property invaded by other people or things, and prohibited Mr. Hopper from fogging for mosquitoes within 150 feet of his neighbor’s property or allowing the pesticides to drift, considering this to be a form of trespass. Nevertheless, Mr. Hopper ignored the ruling and continued fogging. Court records show he persisted through August 2015. Last year, a state judge sentenced him to jail and imposed a $7,500 fine for violating the court order. After months of appealing the ruling, Mr. Hopper will face his sentence.

“This is very important to us,” Ms. Bilchak said. Mr. MacAlpine, diagnosed with leukemia before moving to Colorado, had been told by his doctor to avoid pesticide exposure and was registered with the Colorado Department of Agriculture as a sensitive resident. “It is important for us personally, for his health condition, and because we also set a precedent that pesticide drift is a trespass,” she said.

Pesticide drift is an inevitable result of pesticide application. Adulticides that are spraying into the air, like the one used by Mr. Hopper, remain suspended in the air and can be carried great distances by the wind. Pesticides can also volatilize from surfaces into the air and be transported. Documented exposure patterns resulting from drift cause particular concerns for children and other sensitive population groups, as adverse health effects such as nausea, dizziness, respiratory problems, headaches, rashes, and mental disorientation may appear even when a pesticide is applied according to label directions. Sensitive sites like schools, playground and organic farms are especially vulnerable to drifting pesticides. Contaminated organic farms can lose their organic certification if pesticide residues on their crops exceed organic standards.

“This case sets a level of protection for Coloradans who care about their private property and for organic farmers who need to keep their property safe from pesticide exposure,” said Boulder-based attorney Randall Weiner, who handled the case. “No one is exempt from the responsibility to comply with court orders. This spraying had gone on for seven years, and an individual was caught red-handed,” Mr. Weiner said. “The underlying decision, which the courts forcefully have affirmed, is that pesticide spraying can constitute a trespass on private property, organic farmers, and people whose health is precarious.”

In 2011, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that pesticides drifting from one farm to another may constitute trespass, and courts in other states have ruled in favor of organic farmers. Pesticide drift is not only a problem for organic growers. Pesticide drift has been suspected in tree deaths throughout the East Coast and Midwest. A 2011 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has found that pesticide drift from chemical-intensive farming has poisoned thousands of farmworkers and rural residents.

For more information on pesticide drift, read Beyond Pesticides’ report, Getting the Drift on Chemical Trespass: Pesticide drift hits homes, schools and other sensitive sites throughout communities. You can see a video of Rosemary Bilchak speaking at Beyond Pesticides’ 2014 National Pesticide Forum here. In addition, please check out Beyond Pesticides’ mosquito management page and extensive work on the most efficacious methods for Public Health Management Strategy for  insect-borne diseases. See mosquito management for Zika virus.

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

Source: Denver Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: PANNA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: Nature, Science Daily, Scientific American

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Miami Herald

All unattributed positions are that of Beyond Pesticides.

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Los Angeles Times, Fresno Bee

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