(Beyond Pesticides, June 29, 2018) It is widely known that pollinators are in trouble. In light of this, Kroger (which includes numerous other grocery chains, like Harris Teeter) announced in a press release last week — during National Pollinator Week —  a phase-out by 2020 of live garden plants treated with the insecticides most closely associated with the decline of bee populations, the neonicotinoids. In May, Costco updated its pollinator policy, which “encourages” its suppliers of garden plants, fruits, and vegetables to limit the use of bee-toxic pesticides and adopt ecological practices. The company in 2016 announced a policy to encourage suppliers to change their pesticides.

In a statement that has broad implications for pollinator and environmental protection, Kroger included the following statement about organic food in its press release: “Kroger also offers one of the largest organic produce departments in America, which is desirable for customers looking to minimize potential exposure to synthetic pesticides. Representing nearly 20 percent of America’s annual organic produce business, Kroger sales reached $1 billion in 2017. A dedicated procurement team partners with more than 300 organic produce growers and suppliers every year to bring customers a growing selection of organic fruits and vegetables.” Costco is also encouraging an end to its suppliers’ use of insecticide chlorpyrifos, linked to brain damage in children, and will be significantly expand its offerings of organic food.

The dramatic decline in honey bees and native bees is increasingly documented in the scientific literature, with the research pointing to a family of toxic pesticides — neonicotinoids — as major contributors to colony collapse. A 2014 report found that over half of garden plant samples purchased at major retailers contain neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides, which when applied make plants poisonous to bees and other wild pollinators. (Neonics include imidacloprid, clothianidin, acetamiprid, thiacloprid, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam.) Over the course of the last few years, some companies have begun to come around on the issue of the toxicity of neonicotinoid pesticides to pollinators by taking steps to move away from use of these chemicals.

Kroger has committed to the 2020 phase-out in its stores and garden operations. Even now, most of the live plants Kroger sells are not treated with neonicotinoids during their cultivation, but the company is pushing suppliers that still do use them to find alternatives by the 2020 deadline. The company’s significant penetration — 2,800 stores across 30 U.S. states — can mean a considerable reduction of neonic contamination in the marketplace.

A spokesperson for Kroger said, “The Kroger Co. recognizes the global honeybee population is vulnerable, with research indicating that a cause may include the use of pesticides containing neonicotinoids. Due to the potential risk to the honeybee population, we are committing to eliminate the sourcing of live outdoor plants in our stores and garden centers that have been treated with pesticides containing these neonicotinoids by the year 2020. This policy is inclusive of outdoor plants known to be pollinated by honeybees or known to attract honeybees.”

The company says it plans to rely on the expertise of the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) and other science authorities to evaluate any potential updates to this new policy. That may be less reassuring than it sounds: EPA guidance, especially during the current administration, may not be especially helpful to pollinators. According to advocates, the agency could be far more protective of public health and the environment than it has been, to date. The European Union, for example, banned all outdoor uses of neonicotinoids in April 2018; use will be permitted only in permanent greenhouses where contact with bees is not expected.

In addition, Costco is working with suppliers and growers to plant buffer zones around crops to provide pollinators with additional habitat. In establishing its original pollinator policy in 2016, the company said it was motivated by the dramatic decline in honeybee populations. At the time, Costco issued this statement: “Costco Wholesale understands that the honey bee population is declining and these bees are necessary for the life cycles of people, plants and the food we consume. We have invested in a multi-year research project to improve honey bee health and sustainability and are committed to following the continuing research, developments surrounding bee colony collapse and other areas of environmental concern.”

Other companies have taken similar steps. The Home Depot and BJ’s Wholesale took steps beginning in 2016 and 2014, respectively, to address the plight of pollinators. Since 2014, Home Depot has labeled plants treated with neonics, and 80% of the plants it sells are free of the pesticide. In 2014, BJ’s stopped selling neonics; in 2015, it required all vendors to disclose any use and label any treated plants with “Neonicotinoids applied. Caution around Pollinators,” and required vendors to submit plans for minimizing any effects of their use on pollinators. In 2016, it mandated that all suppliers provide only neonic-free plants (except for poinsettias and blueberries). The company was recognized by Friends of the Earth and the Pesticide Research Institute for its efforts on behalf of pollinators.

Lowe’s announced in April of 2015 that it would phase out the sale of neonic pesticide products within 48 months, and promised to include greater organic product selection in its stores, encourage growers to use biological control programs, and educate employees and consumers through brochures, fact sheets, and product labels. Scott’s Miracle-Gro committed to eliminating neonics from its Ortho brand by 2017. Tim Martin, general manager of the Ortho brand, said, “As the category leader, it is our responsibility to provide consumers with effective solutions that they know are safe for their family and the environment when used as directed. We encourage other companies and brands in the consumer pest control category to follow our lead.” In spring of 2017, Walmart and True Value began to phase out neonicotinoid pesticides from their respective retail supply chains. ACE Hardware lags behind with a vague commitment to protect pollinators.

These announcements follow numerous scientific studies that have consistently implicated neonics in the decline of honey bees and other wild pollinators. The decisions come in part from ongoing consumer and environmental campaigns urging retailers to stop selling plants treated with neonics and to remove products containing them from store shelves. Consumers have a role to play in reducing the use of such toxic pesticides, both in their own yards and gardens, and in advocating with local retailers to get rid of such products in their stores and in their supply chains. Choosing organically cultured plants and organic foods contributes to the transition away from bee-killing neonics and other pesticides. Beyond Pesticides offers helpful guidance on companies and organizations that sell organic seeds and plants to the general public. Included in this directory are seeds for vegetables, flowers, and herbs, as well as living plants and seedlings.

See Beyond Pesticides’ BeeProtective program for more information on science, policy, and advocacy. Watch and share the video Seeds that Poison for a short and concise explanation of the threat to pollinators and the solution.

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

Source: Friends of the Earth Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 28, 2018) Having voted to allow retail recreational cannabis sales as of January 1, 2018, California will mandate testing for pesticide residue in cannabis products beginning July 1. Cannabis farmers welcome the regulations. Nikolai Erickson of Full Moon Farms in Dinsmore, California says, the new requirements will “clear the shelves of poor quality product and give small craft, organic farmers a chance to prove their quality over larger farms. . . . We’re the ones taking the time and energy, putting in the extra hours and the extra cost to ensure that we’ll pass testing. So we’re creating shelf space finally, getting value added for craft.”

The new California laws require that any cannabis products sold by retailers must have undergone both quality and pesticide testing. Whereas from January 1 to June 30, 2018 regulations mandated testing for 21 pesticides and for microbial contaminants, such as E. coli, that number jumps to 66 in July. The regulations also institute new quality standards that analyze products for contaminants, such as feces, mold, and insect and rodent parts. The quality“bar” will jump again in December, when testing must also look for mycotoxins, terpenoids, and heavy metals.

The stakes are high for producers and retailers: if a product batch fails two assays, the state will require that the entire batch be destroyed. In addition, retailers will have to restock their shelves, beginning July 1, with only products that have undergone the new, more stringent, evaluation. All this testing will cost producers, labs, and distributors more; EVIO Labs CEO Lori Glauser says, “The implementation of the new rules will be challenging for all the stakeholders to implement. . . . However, it’s absolutely going to result in improved quality of product and will give consumers peace of mind that the product that they’re purchasing is indeed what it says on the label and that it is free of contaminants.”

The Humboldt Patient Resource Center in Arcata has required its cannabis inventory to be tested for the past three years. The center made the decision to do so after it received product from cultivators who claimed no pesticide use, only to discover that the products were contaminated with pesticides. As owner Mariellen Jurkovich notes, “If you are buying any cannabis . . . and you’re not . . . buying it from where it’s been tested, you are risking your health,” Jurkovich said. “You are risking a chance that these things could be filled with very toxic chemicals.”

Beyond Pesticides has, for a number of years, tracked state-level policies on medical and recreational cannabis use. Because cannabis is not a legal agricultural crop under federal law, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not evaluated the safety of any pesticide on cannabis plants. EPA has established no restrictions for pesticides used in cannabis production, no tolerances, nor any exemptions from tolerances for allowable pesticide residues on cannabis. As a result, EPA-permitted pesticide labels do not contain allowances for pesticide use in cannabis production. Beyond Pesticides maintains that because of the federal status of cannabis (as a Schedule 1 illegal drug), EPA cannot legally register pesticides for use in the production of the crop. Therefore, the organization asserts, pesticide use on cannabis is illegal.

The lack of federal oversight for cannabis as a crop has states all over the map as they sort through what pesticides, and at what levels, cultivators might be allowed to use. (A snapshot of where states were a few years ago is available here.) State regulations continue to be a crazy quilt of laws and shifting policies that attempt to keep pace with public sentiment, emerging science, and existing health and safety regulations. Currently, 29 states allow some form of medical or recreational cannabis to be sold, each with different pesticide rules. Some have affirmed the prohibition inferred from the federal situation (either with clear prohibitory language or through regulatory silence with an explanatory note on pesticide prohibition), some allow certain toxic pesticide, and some permit pesticides that EPA has determined are exempt from registration.

Some of the legislative scrambling constitutes attempts to define allowed pesticide use and management practices in cannabis production. As Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman has said, “The use of pesticides in the cultivation of cannabis has health implications for those growing the crop, and for users who are exposed to toxic residues through inhalation, ingestion, and absorption through the skin. [Some] states and DC have adopted rules that require marijuana to be grown with practices that prevent the use of pesticides.” This moment represents an opportunity to restrict all pesticide use at the front end of a growing market and mandate organic management of cannabis — setting a course to protect health and the environment. (The USDA certified organic seal will not be found on marijuana products any time soon because of the federal status of cannabis.)

With more and more states permitting the sale of cannabis for medical and recreational use, governments, growers, retailers, and consumers would do well to consider whether “weed” is harboring unsavory contaminants, including pesticide residues, that could be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed. If cannabis is something a consumer plans to ingest, consideration of such contamination ought not be different than that for a decision to buy produce grown with or without pesticides.

As states struggle to keep pace with this burgeoning industry, some producer groups have taken matters into their own hands. In Colorado, for example, faced with the state Senate’s indefinite postponement of a proposed “Pesticide-Free Marijuana Bill,” and the failure of the Colorado Department of Agriculture to implement meaningful regulations, the Organic Cannabis Association developed a voluntary “pesticide free” certification program for growers. The certification focused on residues on the finished product, so still allowed the use of pesticides not on the narrow list of those restricted by the state. No doubt an attempt to distinguish more-sustainably-grown cannabis from other products in the marketplace, the certification program nevertheless was a step in the right direction for consumers who wish to protect themselves from unwanted pesticides in their cannabis products.

Early in 2018, Canada took the step — in the runup to its July 2018 launch of the recreational market and after discovering that there was significant contamination of cannabis crops by proscribed pesticides — of instituting very hefty fines (up to $1 million) on growers using the banned compounds. Previously, Health Canada, the country’s primary pesticide enforcement agency, had said fines were unlikely because companies knew the banned pesticides were illegal. However, after the country began regular testing, and news outlets began reporting on multiple instances of banned and highly toxic pesticides making their way onto the market, the agency decided to change its approach. Health Canada currently allows some 20 pesticide products for use on cannabis, most of which are biologically based or least-toxic insecticidal soaps.

A few states (Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts) and the District of Columbia have adopted regulations that focus on less-toxic approaches to cultivation of medical cannabis, with some focus on ensuring growing practices that avoid or prohibit the use of pesticides. The federal “limbo” provides an important opportunity for states to incentivize the development of a significant industry built on production practices that do not rely on pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides opined, in the Winter 2014–2015 issue of its journal, Pesticides and You, that in the absence of useful federal regulation or guidance on the potential impacts of pesticide use on cannabis — to consumers, workers, and the environment — states should at the very least provide clear rules to producers regarding sustainable production practices that are protective. As crop production of cannabis increases, we have an opportunity to restrict all pesticide use at the front end of a growing market, require the adoption of organic systems plans, and set a course to protect health and the environment.

Primary source: Times Standard

(Beyond Pesticides, June 27, 2018)

Farm Bill Headed for a Showdown on Key Environmental, Public Health, and Organic Issues

With a flawed bipartisan Farm Bill expected to sail through the U.S. Senate this week, we need to turn our attention to the upcoming House-Senate Conference Committee that will attempt to resolve differences between the Republican House bill (with no support from Democrats) and the Senate bill. Despite some advances in the Senate Farm Bill for the organic market, including boosts to organic research funding, some provisions to address fraudulent imports, some enhanced conservation programs, and maintaining certification cost-share programs, the Senate bill contains troubling language affecting organic standard setting that could open the door to more damaging provisions in the House bill. It’s like fixing up a house while allowing the foundation to crumble.

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to protect organic in the Farm Bill, remove any changes to the organic standard setting process, and uphold environmental protections.

Beyond Pesticides opposes any provisions in the Farm Bill that amend the standard setting procedures of the federal organic law and believes that no improvements are worth the damage that can be done to the standard setting process and public trust in the organic seal in the marketplace. Beyond Pesticides is urging that conferees in House-Senate Farm Bill conference committee over the next weeks to eliminate amendments that change any aspect of organic standard setting under the Organic Foods Production Act (OPFA).

The Farm Bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 2, is a direct attack on: organic standard setting; the authority of local governments to restrict toxic pesticides; and, the protection of farmworkers, endangered species, and the environment. Now, the Senate is getting ready to pass a bill that opens the door to an attack on organic. While the Senate train is speeding down the track, it is important to keep these damaging provisions out of the final (conference) bill.

Protect Organic Standards. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) gives the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) broad authority and responsibility to ensure organic integrity. The House version of the Farm Bill contains provisions that will give USDA greater direct and indirect power to allow products and practices that were not intended to be a allowed in organic – hydroponics, poultry houses without real access to the outdoors, and dairy operations without meaningful pasture. The Senate bill opens up the dangerous possibility of a change to the organic standard setting process. There should be no changes to the process that establishes organic standards in order to protect the meaning and value of organic in the marketplace.

The Farm Bill should not:

• Change definitions that open OFPA to new interpretations of its core standard setting practices, which ensure rigorous review of synthetic substances in organic production and processing;
• Permit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sidestep the NOSB in allowing toxic post-harvest handling substances (sanitizers) to be used in organic production;
• Change the classification of types of people who may be appointed to the NOSB by adding employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers; and
• Force consideration of allowing the use of products in organic that are subject to weaker standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Farm Bill should also not contain provisions that:

• Amend the federal pesticide law to preempt local governments from restricting pesticide use on private property within their jurisdictions;
• Exempt the use of pesticides from the Endangered Species Act, effectively dooming hundreds of endangered species to extinction and making it legal to kill any endangered species with a pesticide at almost any time;
• Eliminate litigation as a remedy when pesticide decisions threaten endangered species;
• Eliminate all protections under the Clean Water Act when toxic pesticides are sprayed directly into rivers and streams;
• Enact the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act, providing long-term funding to EPA for expedited processing of pesticide approvals, without accompanying measures to ensure that farmworkers and other pesticide applicators are safe;
• Weaken restrictions on the use of the highly toxic ozone deplete, methyl bromide; and
• Give states the authority to delay federal restrictions.

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to protect organic in the Farm Bill, remove any changes to the organic standard setting process, and uphold environmental protections.

We encourage you to customize this message to maximize its impact.

Letter to Senators and Representatives:

Subject: Protect Organic and Environmental Standards in the Farm Bill

 In view of the anticipated passage of the Senate’s Farm Bill, Congress will soon be facing a daunting task of rectifying two very different bills. I urge you to take all possible steps to ensure that the final bill supports organic agriculture and environmental protections and does not interfere with organic standard setting.

 The Farm Bill should not:

• Change definitions that open OFPA to new interpretations of its core standard setting practices, which ensure rigorous review of synthetic substances in organic production and processing;
• Permit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sidestep the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) in allowing toxic post-harvest handling substances (sanitizers) to be used in organic production;
• Change the classification of types of people who may be appointed to the NOSB by adding employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers; and
• Force consideration of allowing the use of products in organic that are subject to weaker standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 The Farm Bill should also not contain provisions that:

• Amend the federal pesticide law to pre-empt local governments from restricting pesticide use on private property within their jurisdictions;
• Exempt the use of pesticides from the Endangered Species Act, effectively dooming hundreds of endangered species to extinction and making it legal to kill any endangered species with a pesticide at almost any time;
• Eliminate litigation as a remedy when pesticide decisions threaten endangered species;
• Eliminate all protections under the Clean Water Act when toxic pesticides are sprayed directly into rivers and streams;
• Enact the “Pesticide Registration Improvement Act,” providing long-term funding to EPA for expedited processing of pesticide approvals, without accompanying measures to ensure that farmworkers and other pesticide applicators are safe;
• Weaken restrictions on the use of the highly toxic ozone depleter, methyl bromide; and
• Give states the authority to delay federal restrictions.

 Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, June 26, 2018) On June 21, 2018, the controversial 2018 Farm Bill (H.R. 2) narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives 213 to 211 with provisions that will eliminate federal review of pesticide impacts on endangered species, undermine organic standards, and ease requirements regarding releases of pesticides into waterways. In May, the bill failed to pass when it got caught in the debate over immigration reform, but now this dangerous bill is much closer to becoming a major threat to the environment.

The bill, H.R. 2, the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018, is a major win for the pesticide industry, which spent $43 million on lobbying this Congressional season, according to the Center for Biological Diversity. At the forefront are provisions that weaken the organic standards and the elimination of the requirement that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) assess pesticide impacts on endangered species before U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves a pesticide for use. The bill also exempts those applying pesticides to lakes, streams, and rivers from having a permit under the Clean Water Act. This will allow indiscriminate contamination of waterways in spite of reports that pesticides are detected frequently and at environmentally relevant concentrations in U.S. waterways.

The House Farm Bill weakens organic standards with provisions that:

• Permit the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to sidestep the NOSB in allowing toxic post-harvest handling substances (sanitizers) to be used in organic production;
• Change the classification of types of people who may be appointed to the NOSB by adding employees of farmers, handlers, and retailers;
• Force consideration of allowing the use of products in organic that are subject to weaker standards of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and
• Give USDA greater direct and indirect power to change the materials allowed in organic production to favor producers who do not meet all the criteria traditionally considered to be required of organic certified operations –such as hydroponics, poultry houses without real access to the outdoors, and dairy operations without meaningful pasture.

The House Farm Bill includes provisions that:

• Amend the federal pesticide law to pre-empt local governments from restricting pesticide use on private property within their jurisdictions;
• Exempt the use of pesticides from the Endangered Species Act, effectively dooming hundreds of endangered species to extinction and making it legal to kill any endangered species with a pesticide at almost any time;
• Eliminate litigation as a remedy when pesticide decisions threaten endangered species;
• Eliminate all protections under the Clean Water Act when toxic pesticides are sprayed directly into rivers and streams;
• Enact the “Pesticide Registration Improvement Act,” providing long-term funding to EPA for expedited processing of pesticide approvals, without accompanying measures to ensure that farmworkers and other pesticide applicators are safe;
• Weaken restrictions on the use of the highly toxic ozone deplete, methyl bromide; and
• Provide state pesticide regulatory agencies a secret chance to slow or effectively veto EPA pesticide protections before they are proposed.

The bill is also controversial because of proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as food stamps. House Republicans have pushed for measures that would increase the number of recipients who must work in order to receive food stamps, including limiting states’ abilities to waive those requirements in areas with poor economies.

The Senate version of the 2018 farm bill thus far does not include these dangerous threats to environmental protections or any changes to the SNAP program — leading some to believe that the House version is unlikely to pass into law.

Farm bills are massive, providing funding for diverse programs including food aid, crop subsidies, rural development, conservation and efforts to stem the opioid crisis in rural communities. The last bill came into effect in 2014, two years behind schedule, after extensive congressional negotiations and partisan fights over food stamps.

The Senate version recently passed out of committee and is expected to sail through the full Senate this week. The bipartisan Senate bill also amends a standard setting provision in the Organic Foods Production Act, opening the way to new interpretations of law and broader changes in the conference between the House and Senate.

Beyond Pesticides opposes any provisions in the Farm Bill that amend the standard setting procedures of the federal organic law and believes that no improvements are worth the damage that can be done to the standard setting process and public trust in the organic market and the organic seal in the marketplace. Beyond Pesticides is urging that conferees in House-Senate Farm Bill conference later in the session eliminate amendments that change any aspect of organic standard setting under the Organic Foods Production Act.

Source: Center for Biological Diversity, EcoWatch, US PIRG

(Beyond Pesticides, June 25, 2018) Ten organizations filed an Amicus brief last week in support of a 2015 landmark Montgomery County, Maryland ordinance that restricts the use of toxic pesticides on public and private land within its jurisdiction. The law, intended to protect children, pets, wildlife, and the wider environment from the hazards of lawn and landscape pesticide use, is on appeal from a Circuit Court ruling in August 2017 which struck down aspects of the ordinance that apply to private property. The Montgomery County Council decided to appeal the Circuit Court ruling based on an outpouring of public support, and the advice of its legal team that the County has a reasonable chance of prevailing. The case will now be heard in front of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

The plaintiffs in the case, which include the pesticide industry group Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE), local chemical lawn care companies, and a few individuals, allege that the local ordinance is preempted by state law, despite the fact that Maryland is one of seven states that has not explicitly taken away (or preempted) local authority to restrict pesticides more stringently than the state.

The law at issue, 52-14 (the Healthy Lawns Act), which restricts the cosmetic lawn care use of toxic pesticides on public and private land, protects over one million people, the largest number to be covered by any local jurisdiction to date. Passing the Montgomery County Council by a veto-proof majority 6-3, the bill allows time for transition, training, and a public education program over several years. In limiting the pesticides allowed to be used for turf management, the law defined acceptable materials as those permitted for use in organic production, or identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “minimum risk pesticides” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 25(b).

“In the absence of federal and state pesticide restrictions that adequately protect children, pets, families, and the environment, and given the availability of sustainable organic practices to manage parks, playing fields and lawns, Montgomery County has exercised its fundamental right, under Maryland and federal law, to limit pesticide use on public and private property within its jurisdiction,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

Although attempts to adopt “explicit” preemption were introduced in the Maryland legislature in the mid-1990s, industry was unsuccessful in gaining enough support, and the state lawmakers never passed legislation expressly preempting local pesticide legislation. Because of this, RISE and its affiliates argue that there is “implied” preemption on the part of the state that would prohibit a local jurisdiction like Montgomery County from taking action to protect its citizens. Although Circuit Court Judge Terrence McGann ruled in favor of the pesticide industry, advocates say the ruling ignores historical precedent set by Maryland counties in leading the way on health and environmental laws, including bans on plastic bags and coal-tar sealants. In the face of an EPA that is increasingly political in its decisions regarding public health, advocates say local laws like Montgomery County’s are more important than ever, and are hoping for a favorable ruling by the Court of Special Appeals.

The groups filing the Amicus include Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Central Maryland Beekeepers Association, Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, Food and Water Watch, Maryland Pesticide Education Network, US PIRG, Maryland PIRG Foundation, Organic Consumers Association, and Safe Grow Montgomery.

Quotes from amici curiae

“It is not just a longstanding right, but a responsibility, of counties in the state to exercise their powers to the fullest to protect the health and wellbeing of their citizens. This lawsuit unfortunately seeks to strip Montgomery, and other counties in the state, of their critical role in the protection of public health,” said Chris Nidel, partner at Nidel & Nace, PLLC, which represents the amici.

“People’s concern about pesticides continues to increase, while their confidence in the EPA’s regulation continues to erode.  Instead of fighting communities’ democratic right to local legislation, the landscaping and pesticide companies could grow their business in response to the high demand for pesticide-free services that don’t harm neighbors, children, pets, and pollinators. Thousands of county residents voiced support for the Healthy Lawns Act, and demand is growing outside the county as well,” said Alex Stavitsky-Zeineddin, Safe Grow Montgomery.

“Montgomery County did the right thing in passing this law. In children, there is increasing evidence that exposure to these pesticides is especially damaging, even at low, chronic levels,” said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility.

“Regular people in Montgomery County worked hard to pass a law that would protect their families’ health. But now a giant pesticide group, with big industry backing, is trying to come in and take that away. That’s not right. That doesn’t reflect the fighting spirit of Maryland. And that’s why we had to join in this brief,” said Kara Cook-Schultz, Toxics Director, Maryland PIRG Foundation.

“Montgomery County chose to protect its children, pollinators, all wildlife and Maryland’s waterways by its passage of an ordinance restricting the use of hazardous pesticides on public and private land. Safer landcare practices allow for a healthier, attractive county environment,” said Ruth Berlin, executive director of Maryland Pesticide Education Network.

“Like many communities around the country, the people of Montgomery County decided to exercise their right to protect their environment and loved ones from the harmful impacts of pesticides. Instead of respecting that right, the chemical industry is once again trying to trump the democratic process with their deep litigation pockets. CFS stands with the communities’ right to demand a cleaner environment,” said George Kimbrell, Legal Director at the Center for Food Safety.

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

Contact:
Jay Feldman, 202-255-4296 [email protected]
Alex Stavitsky-Zeineddin, 202 360-7166 [email protected]

(Beyond Pesticides, June 22, 2018) Mosquito misters pose a threat to human health. They also harm bees and other flying pollinators and are the least effective way to deal with biting mosquitoes. These devices are typically placed outdoors and spray insecticides –mostly in an attempt to control mosquitoes.  In May, the Connecticut state legislature voted to ban the use of residential pesticide misting systems.

Urge your Governor and state legislators to ban pesticide misters.

In addition to the threat to people’s health, misters harm pollinators who may be foraging in an area where the devices are used. Studies find that sublethal concentrations of synthetic pyrethroids significantly reduce bee fecundity and decrease the rate at which bees develop to adulthood and reproduce. Field and laboratory studies using pyrethroids have consistently documented decreases in foraging activity and activity at the hive entrance after exposure.

While pesticides are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pesticide misters and other application devices are not subject to EPA oversight, leaving states with the authority to control their use. Connecticut appears to be the first state to restrict pesticide misting machines through legislation. The state of New York took an administrative approach to regulating these devices, as the commissioner of the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation used his authority to deem pesticides used in misting systems as restricted use (only available to certified applicators).

In 2015, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, detailing false and deceptive claims by manufacturers of pesticide misters. Specifically, PEER noted that manufacturers claim that these misters (1) are effective in controlling mosquitoes despite contention from experts and even the American Mosquito Control Association that they are not effective, (2) have the ability to kill ticks, of which there is no evidence, and (3) are “safe” and “natural,” despite their use of highly toxic pesticides. Absent federal action, the responsibility to regulate these dangerous devices falls to the states.

Urge your Governor and state legislators to ban pesticide misters.

Staying mosquito-free in one’s backyard requires both individual and community efforts. For the individual, during mosquito season use least-toxic repellents like oil of lemon eucalyptus. If possible, wear loose, light colored long-sleeved clothing. If you want to spend protected periods outside sipping lemonade during a hot summer evening, sit next to an oscillating fan, as mosquitoes are not great fliers. For more protection, sit inside a screened deck, or pop-up tent.

At the community level, you can achieve neighborhood-level reductions in mosquitoes by joining with your neighbors in regularly dumping out standing water and encouraging flying and swimming predators. Larvaciding sites that cannot be drained is more effective than spraying adults, but still disrupts ecological forces that maintain balance. Most common mosquitoes don’t fly too far from where they hatched, and often one location in a community, such as stagnant water in a neighbor’s old pool, can be a major source for mosquito breeding throughout the neighborhood.

Use Beyond Pesticides’ mosquito doorknob hangers to get the word out. Contact the office for 25 free hangers, or purchase more at Beyond Pesticides’ Storefront. If you are concerned about broader aerial or truck-mounted spraying campaigns by governments or vector control districts, also reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 202-543-5450 for organizing strategies to stop toxic mosquito spray in your community.

Model Legislative Language: Connecticut General Assembly SB104.

Letters (two options):

For Connecticut residents, to Connecticut legislators and governor:

Pesticide misters harm bees and other flying pollinators and are the least effective way to deal with biting mosquitoes. These devices are typically placed outdoors and spray insecticides –mostly in an attempt to control mosquitoes, putting people and other species at risk.  In May, the Connecticut state legislature voted to ban the use of residential pesticide misting systems. The vote was unanimous in the state Senate, and won by a count of 132-17 in the state House.

Thank you for protecting Connecticut residents!

Sincerely,

For other states:

Mosquito misters pose a threat to human health. They also harm bees and other flying pollinators and are the least effective way to deal with biting mosquitoes. These devices are typically placed outdoors and spray insecticides –mostly in an attempt to control mosquitoes.)  In May, the Connecticut state legislature voted to ban the use of residential pesticide misting systems.

In addition to the threat to people’s health, misters harm pollinators who may be foraging in an area where the devices are used. Studies find that sublethal concentrations of synthetic pyrethroids significantly reduce bee fecundity and decrease the rate at which bees develop to adulthood and reproduce. Field and laboratory studies using pyrethroids have consistently documented decreases in foraging activity and activity at the hive entrance after exposure.

While pesticides are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pesticide misters and other application devices are not subject to EPA oversight, leaving states with the authority to control their use. Connecticut appears to be the first state to restrict pesticide misting machines through legislation. The state of New York took an administrative approach to regulating these devices, as the commissioner of the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation used his authority to deem pesticides used in misting systems as restricted use (only available to certified applicators).

In 2015, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, detailing false and deceptive claims by manufacturers of pesticide misters. Specifically, PEER noted that manufacturers claim that these misters (1) are effective in controlling mosquitoes despite contention from experts and even the American Mosquito Control Association that they are not effective, (2) have the ability to kill ticks, of which there is no evidence, and (3) are “safe” and “natural,” despite their use of highly toxic pesticides. Absent federal action, the responsibility to regulate these dangerous devices falls to the states.

The Connecticut law consists of two short paragraphs:

“(a) On and after January 1, 2019, no person shall install or utilize any residential automatic pesticide misting system in this state. For purposes of this section, “residential automatic pesticide misting system” means any device that is designed to be installed on, near or around the exterior of any residential dwelling or the grounds of such residential dwelling and to automatically spray any pesticide solution at timed intervals.

“(b) The Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection may adopt regulations, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 of the general statutes, to implement the provisions of subsection (a) of this section. Such regulations may include, but shall not be limited to, the establishment of a fine for the violation of subsection (a) of this section.”

I urge you to follow the example of Connecticut and ban the use of residential pesticide misting systems.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, June 21, 2018) In a letter sent by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is being urged to complete status reviews and listing proposals for 23 wildlife species in the Southeast that are at risk of extinction. Citing deep concerns about unprecedented assaults on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the letter reiterates the critical need for FWS to provide timely protection to the most critically imperiled species.

Highlighting the plight of 23 freshwater animals and plants, like the southern snaketail and the sunfacing coneflower, and the consideration by the Trump Administration to withdraw ESA findings for dozens of species, CBD submitted the letter, dated June 8, 2018, urging FWS to follow the law, and review and publish species protection proposals.

CBD initiated a review of 61 species for which the group had already filed a petition seeking ESA protections. This came after the Trump administration’s unprecedented move to reverse an Obama-era decision to review the status of the species because available information indicates they may warrant listing. CBD first petitioned FWS for their protection in 2010. Hundreds of other highly imperiled species are similarly awaiting decisions, but, according to CBD, a declining budget and opposition from the Trump administration are stalling these critical protections.

The Trump administration has proposed slashing the budget for endangered species listings by half, from $20.5 million to $10.9, and to prioritize delisting species rather than granting protection to new ones. These budget cuts are being proposed despite FWS’s backlog of hundreds of species that have been found to warrant consideration for protection. Since 2000, several southeastern species have been identified as extinct including the beaverpond marstonia snail, Tatum Cave beetle, Florida zestos and rockland grass skipper butterflies, the green blossom, yellow blossom, tubercled bloosom, and turgid blossom pearly mussels, the Florida fairy shrimp, and the South Florida rainbow snake. Many of the species CBD petitioned for are still awaiting reviews, while others were withdrawn from the petition.

“Endangered species decisions have long been plagued by delay and political interference, but these problems are becoming a crisis under Trump,” said Tierra Curry, a CBD senior scientist. “Rather than following the law and reviewing the status of species like the southern snaketail, the administration wants to push them out the back door and ignore those at risk of extinction.”

Attacks on ESA have been a regular occurrence since the inauguration of the 115^th United States Congress on January 3, 2017. This Congress already has seen at least 63 legislative attacks seeking to strip federal protections from specific species or undercutting the Endangered Species Act according to CBD.  There are documented a total of 164 bills introduced into Congress which have sought to dismantle critical species protections between 2010 and 2015.

Earlier this year, over 60 agriculture groups signed a letter telling House Agriculture Committee leaders that the current ESA review and permitting process is redundant and provides no environmental benefit, but instead imposes additional costs on farms and businesses. These sentiments were echoed in provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill to exempt the use of pesticides from ESA review, threatening hundreds of endangered species and making it legal to kill any endangered species with a pesticide at almost any time. While this bill  passed the House Agriculture Committee without any Democratic support, it failed in the House because some members have been holding up the legislation over a demand for moving their immigration bill, and is expected to come up for a vote again as early as Friday this week.

With species decline increasing across the globe, it is critical that we protect those already at heightened risk. An important provision of the ESA is the requirement that each federal agency that proposes to authorize, fund, or carry out an action that may affect a listed species or its critical habitat must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. Although many species –including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and California condor— have been protected and brought back from the brink of extinction under the ESA, an estimated 500 species have disappeared in the past 200 years.

See Beyond Pesticides’ action on this issue or write or call your Congressional Representative and urge her/him to support the ESA’s scientific review process and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

(Beyond Pesticides, June 20, 2018) Bumblebee queens that wake up from hibernation to a neonicotinoid-contaminated, monofloral landscape take longer to set up their nest and die-off at higher rates, according to new research from the University of California, Riverside (UCR) published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.  While this is the first study to evaluate multiple stressors – pesticide exposure and a monotypic diet – on bumblebee pollinators as they initiate a new colony, it is far from the first to conclude that the neonicotinoid class of insecticides result in unacceptable adverse impacts to insect pollinators. With Pollinator Week 2018 underway, advocates say it is time that the U.S. catches up to the European Union and Canada and starts to ban the use of bee-toxic neonicotinoid insecticides.

Bumblebee queens only live long enough to produce one colony. After establishing a colony over the spring and summer months, by fall a new queen hatches and the old queen dies. The new queen leaves the nest and mates, then goes underground to seek shelter and hibernate over the winter. If she makes it through the winter, the single queen will then emerge in spring to begin her own colony and start the cycle anew. Unlike honey bees, which produce colonies that can contain upwards of 50,000 bees, bumblebees create small colonies that will usually top out at around 450 bees. These factors all leave much more room for error and increase the risk of colony failure due to adverse environmental conditions.

“Queens are probably already a bottleneck for bumblebee population dynamics,” said Hollis Woodard, PhD, lead author of the study in a press release. “If a queen dies because of exposure to manmade stressors, then a nest full of hundreds of important pollinators simply won’t exist.”

UCR researchers aimed to investigate whether a hazardous environment, such as pesticide contamination or lack of floral diversity, affected a bumblebee queen’s ability to successfully establish a new colony. The neonicotinoid imidacloprid was applied at a sublethal rate – 5ppb-  in nectar fed to bumblebee queens after waking from hibernation. Those constantly exposed to this dose over the course of a little over a month were roughly six times more likely to die, and exhibited significantly less activity. At a shorter exposure time period of roughly half a month, some queens partially recovered, but the adverse effects of the insecticide were clear. While a monotypic diet of one pollen source did not lead to the same increased mortality or retarded movement, it did reduce the number of eggs a queen would lay.

“Ours is the first study to explore the impact of multiple stressors on bumblebee queens during an understudied but important phase of their lives. It joins a small but growing body of research suggesting there are unique effects on queens that can have dramatic consequences for future generations,” Dr. Woodard said.

Previous studies have indeed found neonicotinoids to be associated with altered feeding behaviors and reduced egg development in bumblebee queens, as well as the inhibition of pollination skills among bumblebee workers, the loss of bumblebees’ characteristic “buzz” pollination technique, and reductions in overall colony size. And that represents a small sampling of independent scientific studies Beyond Pesticides has covered over only the past two years.

As Dr. Woodward suggests, this study adds to an already well-established body of scientific data indicating that U.S. regulators should reconsider the ongoing use of neonicotinoid insecticides. “Our research suggests there are hidden costs to insecticide use that may only be observed if you consider the totality of an organism’s life history. This is intricately linked to human well-being because bee heath is extremely important for food production, biodiversity, and the environment,” she said.

Now is the time to take action for pollinator health. Help bring back their buzz to landscapes throughout the United States by participating in Pollinator Week 2018.  Check out Beyond Pesticides’ Pollinator Week 2018 website for actions you can take to help reclaim pollinator-safe spaces. Also, view Seeds that Poison.

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

Source: UCR Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, June 19, 2018) Some 200 members of a French beekeeping cooperative in the northern Aisne region have sued Bayer — on the same day the giant chemical company’s acquisition of Monsanto was finalized — after discovering that their honey was contaminated with toxic glyphosate, a known endocrine disruptor and probable human carcinogen (according to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer). Monsanto is the long-time manufacturer of Roundup, the popular glyphosate pesticide; Bayer now owns not only the company, but also, the liabilities that come with it, including the “Monsanto” name. Environmental activists had denounced the merger, which creates an agrichemical leviathan that promotes use of chemical herbicides and genetically engineered/modified (GE/GMO) seeds.

The beekeepers’ suit was filed in early June after Famille Michaud, a large French honey marketer, detected glyphosate contamination in three batches from one of the coop’s members — whose hives happen to border large fields of rapeseed, beets, and sunflowers. Glyphosate is commonly used in French agriculture; President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to ban its use by 2021.

Emmanuel Ludot, a lawyer for the cooperative, is looking for an outcome that includes mandated investigation of the extent of glyphosate contamination of honey, and of health consequences the pesticide represents for people. Mr. Ludot said, “It’s also a matter of knowing how widespread this might be. Famille Michaud tells me this isn’t an isolated case.” Familles Michaud president Vincent Michaud noted that “we regularly detect foreign substances, including glyphosate. Usually, beekeepers will say, ‘In that case I’ll sell the honey at a roadside stand or a market,’ where there’s no quality control. But this beekeeper had the courage to say, ‘I’m not going to be like everyone else, I’m going to file suit against Monsanto.’”

French beekeepers are not alone in pushing back on glyphosate contamination of honey. Stateside, several organizations and individuals have approached the issue with a different strategy. Rather than suing the manufacturer, in November 2016, Beyond Pesticides, along with the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), brought suit against Sioux Honey Association (Sue Bee Honey) in Superior Court in Washington, DC for deceptive and misleading labeling of its products. The suit, which followed revelations that Sue Bee honey products labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural” tested positive for glyphosate residue, claimed that Sioux Honey’s labeling and marketing practices violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Plaintiffs’ argument was that consumers expect a product labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural” to contain only honey, and that contamination of the product makes that labeling deceptive and misleading.

The introduction to the filed complaint says, “Beekeepers are often the victims of, and have little recourse against, contamination of their hives caused by pesticide applications in the fields where bees forage. Given the failure of current law to protect beekeepers, retailers like Sioux Honey can and should use their market power to promote practices that protect beekeepers from contamination to ensure that consumers are provided products free of glyphosate and other pesticide residues. . . . Unless the paradigm of modern agriculture is shifted, however, synthetic chemicals will continue to contaminate everyday consumer products, and until that time, producers, distributors, and retailers of food products must be mindful of the fact that products containing such contaminants are not ‘natural’ or ‘pure,’ as a reasonable consumer would define the terms, and it is unlawful to label or advertise them as such.”

The intent of the suit was, broadly, to highlight the issue of pesticide contamination in the food supply. OCA director Ronnie Cummins said, “Regardless of how these products came to be contaminated, Sioux Honey has an obligation to . . . prevent the contamination, disclose the contamination, or at the very least, remove these deceptive labels.” Beyond Pesticides and OCA lost the case. In March 2017, Associate Judge William Jackson of the DC Superior Court granted Sioux Honey’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no evidence consumers had been misled by Sioux’s labeling on the honey. He also found that the trace amounts of glyphosate in the honey “were not ingredients or additives because the chemical had been introduced into the products by bees carrying it back to the hive rather than something the company added during production.” The judge found that the court did not believe that consumers expect “pure” honey to be free from small amounts of glyphosate. Beyond Pesticides has not yet announced next steps in the case, but is determined, on all fronts, to highlight the fact that our food supply is being contaminated by glyphosate (and other pesticides).

In a similar case brought before a District Court in California — Susan Tran v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to an order by Judge Josephine Staton, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asking FDA to determine whether and in what circumstances honey containing glyphosate may or may not be labeled “Pure” or “100% Pure.” The FDA declined to provide a determination, saying “FDA’s role is to ensure that pesticide chemical residues on or in food are lawful because they do not exceed the limits established by EPA or, if present on or in foods without a tolerance, EPA has established an exemption from the need for a tolerance. . . . Any food that bears or contains a pesticide chemical residue that is not within the limits of a tolerance established by EPA, or is not exempted from the need for a tolerance, is adulterated. . . . EPA has established tolerances for glyphosate on such crops as corn, soybean, oil seeds, grains, and some fruits and vegetables, EPA has not established any tolerances or exemptions for glyphosate in honey. FDA understands that EPA’s review of the safety of glyphosate is ongoing. FDA intends to consider the need for any appropriate actions with regard to glyphosate findings in honey in consultation with EPA.”

Essentially, FDA declined to issue a determination based on a lack of clarity about whether or not the presence of glyphosate residues in honey is lawful. Because EPA has issued neither a tolerance level, nor an exemption from such tolerance, for glyphosate, FDA asserts that its presence is in a sort “legal limbo” until, apparently, EPA decides to take up the matter. Beyond Pesticides contends that the lack of an established tolerance means that glyphosate should not be present in honey. Oddly, one of FDA’s points in its letter — “Any food that bears or contains a pesticide chemical residue that is not within the limits of a tolerance established by EPA, or is not exempted from the need for a tolerance, is adulterated” — would appear to support the contention of the plaintiffs.

The real and lasting solution is, of course, to disallow EPA registration of pesticides that will (or can) contaminate the food supply. Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman notes, “It is our hope that beekeepers in the U.S. will, as did those in France, join the effort to push back against the registration of pesticides that invade the environment and cause indiscriminate poisoning and contamination. Until that is achieved, it is misleading to label contaminated food — especially food without a tolerance — as ‘100% pure’ or ‘natural.’”

Beyond Pesticides works to educate the public and policy makers about the issues that attend pesticide use, and the multiplicity of impacts pesticides cause, or to which they contribute. See these Beyond Pesticides website pages, in particular: Center for Community Pesticide and Alternatives Information, Organic Agriculture, the Daily News Blog, and its journal, Pesticides and You. For more on pollinators and action steps you can take to protect them, go to Beyond Pesticides’ National Pollinator Week actions.

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

Source: https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/french-beekeepers-accuse-bayer-after-glyphosate-found-honey-doc-15q7rk1

View video here.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 18, 2018) At the start of National Pollinator Week, Beyond Pesticides today released its new video, Seeds that Poison –to broaden public understanding of the devastating adverse effects of pesticides on the health of pollinators (bees, birds, butterflies, and other organisms), and the solution in the organic management of agriculture, parks, playing fields, gardens, and lawns. Hazardous pesticides tied to the decline of honey bees and native bees are not permitted in certified organic food production and numerous policies adopted by local governments across the U.S.

The accumulated studies and data have found that honey bees and other pollinators, such as native bees, butterflies and birds, are in decline. Scientists studying the issue have identified several factors that are contributing to bee decline, including pesticides, parasites, improper nutrition, stress, and habitat loss. (See Beyond Pesticides’ What the Science Shows.)

Pesticides have been identified in the independent scientific literature as a major contributing factor. Pesticides in the neonicotinoid (neonic) chemical class have been singled out as major suspects due to their widespread use as seed coatings, high toxicity to bees, “systemic” nature –neonic chemicals move through the plant’s vascular system and are expressed in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets– and persistence. Neonicotinoids are highly toxic to honey bees and, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges this fact, little is being done at the federal level to protect bees and other pollinators from these pesticides.

Neonicotinoid-coated Seeds
The majority of corn, soybeans, and other food crop seeds are coated with toxic pesticides. Many seeds and flowers marketed as “bee-friendly” at garden centers are also contaminated with systemic chemicals. These pesticides emerge from the seed through the plant, and invade soil biology and surrounding waterways, causing indiscriminate poisoning and contamination.

Uses of Neonicotinoids
The most commonly used seed coatings are neonicotinoid insecticides. While seed coatings represent a significant use of these insecticides, they can also be applied through granules, foliar spray, or drenches around plant roots. With every type of use, neonic chemicals work their way into plants, their pollen, nectar, and sap droplets, making them poisonous to pollinators who feed on them. Birds, bees, butterflies and bats are indiscriminately poisoned when they forage in contaminated fields.

Hazards of Neonicotinoids
Since the introduction of systemic neonicotinoid pesticides, both honey bees and wild, native pollinators have experienced ongoing catastrophic declines. In some years, such as the 2015-2016 season, beekeepers experienced an average of 44% colony loss, with some beekeepers losing their entire business. The scientific literature shows that the use of these chemicals results in exposed pollinators suffering impaired foraging, navigational, and learning behavior, as well as increased susceptibility to mites and pathogens. This threatens the sustainability of the global food supply, particularly nutrient dense fruiting foods that depend on bees and other pollinators. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, of the 100 crop species that provide 90% of global food, 71 are pollinated by bees.

Neonicotinoids also contaminate over half of urban and agricultural streams across the U.S. and Puerto Rico, according to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that expands on a previous study finding the chemicals in Midwest waterways. These insecticides are very highly toxic to a range of aquatic organisms, including shrimp and aquatic insects. Reproductive effects are observed in several freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates. Developmental effects occur in benthic invertebrates living at the bottom of waterbodies, including the sediment surface and subsurface. In the regulatory arena at EPA, alarms began to go off when the agency found in its 2017 risk assessment for imidacloprid, the most widely used neonicotinoid, “[C]oncentrations of imidacloprid detected in streams, rivers, lakes and drainage canals routinely exceed acute and chronic toxicity endpoints derived for freshwater invertebrates.” (USEPA. 2017) (See Beyond Pesticides report Poisoned Waterways: The Same Pesticide that Is Killing Bees Is Destroying Life in the Nation’s Streams, Rivers, and Lakes.)

Effectiveness
The use of these chemicals is not only dangerous to the environment, but puts farmers at economic risk. Research finds that their use can undermine pest control efforts and cause “trophic cascades.” One study found that when applied to seeds in an attempt to prevent pest slugs from eating seedlings, slugs were unaffected by neonicotinoid toxicity. However, they accumulated the chemicals in their body, and their main predator beetles died in consuming them. By creating an ecological imbalance, neonicotinoids allowed the pest slugs to proliferate.

A 2014 EPA analysis found that neonicotinoid seed treatments provide little to no benefit to farmers in managing insects or improving yield in soybean fields. And a comprehensive review by an international team of scientists, called the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides, found that the effectiveness of alternative pest management techniques eliminates the need to use neonicotinoids.

Regulatory Status
Over the past year, major actions in Europe and Canada have been taken to ban or restrict the use of neonicotinoids. After the European Union (EU) instituted its initial moratorium on neonic applications to flowering crops in 2013, accumulated research led to a permanent extension of this ban to include all outdoor uses of these systemic insecticides in May 2018. Canadian regulators have issued interim decisions on several neonicotinoids, with recommendations that will significantly curtail their uses, but the country has stopped short of banning the chemicals all together.

In the United States, EPA issued very minor changes to neonicotinoid product labels in 2013, but has yet to take substantive action to restrict use. President Obama created a National Pollinator Health Strategy with a number of lofty goals, but there is no indication that the Trump Administration is continuing this work. However, state level action has been seen in Connecticut and Maryland, where consumer uses of neonicotinoids have been eliminated. Numerous local communities, universities, and retailers have also taken action to remove neonicotinoid pesticides from use in their land management practices or store shelves.

Litigation
A number of U.S. lawsuits have sought to protect pollinators from neonics and neonic-coated seeds. The lawsuit Ellis v. Housenger (EPA), originally filed in March 2013 by beekeeper Steve Ellis and a coalition of beekeepers and environmental groups including Beyond Pesticides, focused on EPA’s failure to protect pollinators from dangerous pesticides and challenged EPA’s oversight of the bee-killing pesticides, clothianidin and thiamethoxam, as well as the agency’s practice of “conditional registration” and labeling deficiencies. The ruling in the case by a federal judge in May 2017 declared that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when it issued 59 neonicotinoid insecticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for pesticide products containing clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

For National Pollinator Week: See below the suggestions for actions you can take to protect pollinators:

Monday (June 18, 2018)
Watch and share the new short-film “Seeds that Poison.” To kick off Pollinator Week 2018, Beyond Pesticides is releasing a new video highlighting the hazards associated with a major use of bee-toxic pesticides – seed coatings. Please watch and share with friends and family! Click here to watch Seeds that Poison.

After distributing the film, please contact your state elected officials to ask that they act to protect pollinators. (Connecticut and Maryland have taken action.)

Folks in the DC area can also attend a “Pollinator Forum” to learn about pollinators and celebrate them. The event is taking place at the Tabard Inn (Monday, June 18) and will feature Beyond Pesticides’ Science and Regulatory Director Nichelle Harriott. Click here to purchase tickets.

Tuesday
Plant pollinator habitat. Explore Beyond Pesticides’ resources to find ideas for native plantings or sources of untreated flowers and dig your pollinator-friendly garden today. Use the Bee Protective Habitat Guide and or Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory to help!

Wednesday
Take local action. Use our organizing materials to engage your public officials or local garden center to eliminate the use of bee-toxic pesticides in your community. Sign the pledge that you’re ready to fight for a pesticide-free community.

Thursday
Take federal action. The European Union (EU) recently banned outdoor uses of neonic insecticides, and Canada is poised to put new restrictions on many uses. With the dismantling of EPA and the outsized influence of the chemical industry on Administrator Scott Pruitt, urge your members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Saving America’s Pollinators Act!

Friday
Tell your state officials to ban mosquito misters. Mosquito misters harm bees and other flying pollinators, and are the least effective way to deal with biting mosquitoes. (Misters are unregulated devices that are typically placed outdoors and continually spray insecticides –mostly in an attempt to control mosquitoes.) Urge your Governor and state legislators to ban the use of misters.

What More You Can Do

There is an alternative to the indiscriminate poisoning of pollinators and ecosystems. A solution exists that is effective, productive, economically viable, and sustainable and does not require yet another new toxic pesticide or genetically engineered crop: organic land management. By respecting the environment, the complexity and benefits of interconnected ecosystems, organic agriculture protects pollinators and enhances the benefits we derive from the natural environment. See Beyond Pesticides’ Eating With a Conscience database for more on why organic is the right choice, and the Bee Protective webpage for additional resources you can use to go organic and safeguard pollinator populations.

Join the effort to move your community to organic land management practices. See Beyond Pesticides’ resources to assist in the adoption of organic policies and practices.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 15, 2018) In recognition of the importance of pollinators and biodiversity to a healthy environment and healthy people during National Pollinator Week, June 18-24, Beyond Pesticides announces a week of activities and actions.

Monday (June 18)
Watch and share the new short-film “Seeds that Poison.”
To kick off Pollinator Week 2018, Beyond Pesticides is releasing a new video highlighting the hazards associated with a major use of bee-toxic pesticides – seed coatings. Please watch and share with friends and family! Click here to watch Seeds that Poison.

After distributing the film, please contact your state elected officials to ask that they act to protect pollinators. (Connecticut and Maryland have taken action.)

Folks in the DC area can also attend a “Pollinator Forum” to learn about pollinators and celebrate them. The event is taking place at the Tabard Inn (Monday, June 18) and will feature Beyond Pesticides’ Science and Regulatory Director Nichelle Harriott. Click here to purchase tickets.

Tuesday
Plant pollinator habitat. Explore Beyond Pesticides’ resources to find ideas for native plantings or sources of untreated flowers and dig your pollinator-friendly garden today. Use the Bee Protective Habitat Guide and or Pollinator-Friendly Seed Directory to help!

Wednesday
Take local action. Use our organizing materials to engage your public officials or local garden center to eliminate the use of bee-toxic pesticides in your community. Sign the pledge that you’re ready to fight for a pesticide-free community.

Thursday
Take federal action. The European Union (EU) recently banned outdoor uses of neonic insecticides, and Canada is poised to put new restrictions on many uses. With the dismantling of EPA and the outsized influence of the chemical industry on Administrator Scott Pruitt, urge your members of Congress to co-sponsor and pass the Saving America’s Pollinators Act!

Friday
Tell your state officials to ban mosquito misters. Mosquito misters harm bees and other flying pollinators, and are the least effective way to deal with biting mosquitoes. (Misters are unregulated devices that are typically placed outdoors and continually spray insecticides –mostly in an attempt to control mosquitoes.) Urge your Governor and state legislators to ban the use of misters.

For more information, visit our BEE  Protective and Pollinator Week 2018 pages.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 14, 2018) With nearly 40% of Americans diagnosed as clinically obese, leading to health care costs estimated at over $200 billion, researchers are focusing on ways individuals can reduce their exposure to chemicals that contribute to weight gain regardless of diet or exercise. These chemicals, known as “obesogens,” include a range of consumer products, from pesticides to plastics and flame retardants. While diet and exercise remain critically important to fighting the ongoing obesity epidemic, obesogens may be working to increase appetite, fat storage, or make it more difficult for the body to shed fat once it is gained.

In a presentation at the European Society for Endocrinology in Barcelona, researchers from the Universities of Aveiro and Beira Interior, Portugal identified ways these chemicals are entering our environment, and good habits to employ in order to reduce obesogen exposure. “Obesogens can be found almost everywhere, and our diet is a main source of exposure, as some pesticides and artificial sweeteners are obesogens. Equally, they are present in plastics and home products, so completely reducing exposure is extremely difficult – but to significantly reduce it is not only feasible, but also very simple”, lead researcher Ana Catarina Sousa, PhD, says in a press release.

Specific recommendations include:

• “Choosing fresh food over processed products with long lists of ingredients on the label – the longer the list, the more likely the product is to contain obesogens
• Buying fruit and vegetables produced without pesticides, such as certified organic or local pesticide-free products
• Reducing the use of plastic, especially when heating or storing food. Instead, use glass or aluminum containers for your food and drinks.
• Removing shoes when entering the house to avoid bringing in contaminants in the sole of shoes
• Vacuuming often, using high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and dust your house frequently using a damp cloth.
• Removing or minimizing carpet at home or work, as they tend to accumulate more dust
• Avoiding cleaning products when possible, or choose those that do not contain obesogens”

Dr. Sousa and her team identified diet and dust as the primary route of exposure to obesogenic chemicals. “Adults ingest about 50mg of dust every day, and children twice as much, so keeping the house clean is a very effective measure,” she notes. “And use a humid cloth to dust your furniture, rather than a cleaning product that may contain more of these chemicals.”

Bruce Blumberg, PhD, University of California, Irvine, first hypothesized the theory on the role environmental chemicals play in promoting obesity in 2006. Coining the term “obesogen,” Dr. Blumberg found that a chemical his team was researching for other issues, a now-banned pesticide called tributyltin, happened to be make laboratory mice fat. Since then, research on the issue continues to expand significantly, and government bodies such as the National Institute for Environmental Health Services have recognized the role pesticides and other chemicals play in weight gain and the global obesity epidemic.

For more information about obesogens, see Dr. Blumberg’s recent article in Environmental Health News, or watch his recently released talk from Beyond Pesticides 36^th National Pesticide Forum in Irvine, California.

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

Source: EurekAlert Press Release from the European Society of Endocrinology

(Beyond Pesticides, June 13, 2018) On June 6, 2018, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) released its final policy for the disclosure of cleaning product ingredients under its Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program. The program will require full disclosure of ingredients on product labels or manufacturer website for all products sold in the state, as well as the identification of chemicals of concern. NYSDEC states the program is intended to protect consumers from harmful chemicals in household products.

The Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program requires manufacturers of cleaning products sold in New York to disclose chemical ingredients and identify any ingredients that appear on authoritative lists of chemicals of concern on their websites. Companies must also provide a list of links to product’s ingredients to NYSDEC. New York states that it “will be the first state in the nation to require such disclosure and the State’s program goes beyond initiatives in other states by requiring the robust disclosure of byproducts and contaminants, as well as chemicals with the potential to trigger asthma in adults and children.”

Products included in the program are cleaning products like soaps and detergents containing surfactants, emulsifying agents and used primarily for domestic or commercial cleaning purposes, including but not limited to the cleansing of fabrics, dishes, food utensils and household and commercial premises. Not covered are food, pesticides, drugs, cosmetics and other personal care items like shampoo and toothpaste. Now, known byproducts and contaminants in cleaning products, including 1,4-dioxane, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanoic sulfate (PFOS) – all now found in drinking water supplies across New York State – will have to be disclosed.

All ingredients, including fragrances, surfactants, preservatives, etc, must be disclosed. Chemicals of concern must also be identified; these are defined as any chemical listed national and international lists including, California Prop 65, EU Carcinogen, Mutagen and/or reproductive toxicants (Cat 1A and 1B), EU Endocrine Disruptors (substances of high concern)
IRIS Carcinogens (Groups A B1, B2), Canada PBTs, IARC Carcinogens (Groups 1,2a, 2b), ATSDR Neurotoxicants, EPA Priority Chemicals List, and others (see full list here).  The Program Policy states that the fact that an ingredient appears on such a list “must be clearly and unequivocally indicated where the ingredient appears on the list of ingredients,” using phrases such as, “Present on XXX list,”, “Chemical of Concern” or “Present on List of Concern.” Additionally, nanoscale ingredients will also need to be disclosed. For example, according to the Program Policy, if the nanoscale material is carbon, the disclosure should use the term “nanoscale” carbon.

Manufacturers must post all required information for the following ingredients by July 1, 2019. However, small manufacturers (100 or less employees) will have until July 1, 2020 to comply. Manufacturers will have to update their disclosures each time they change the ingredients in a product, introduce a new product to the market, or a list of chemicals of concern is changed to include an ingredient present in any of their products.

The program was proposed and opened for public comment in 2017, under Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 35 and New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 659. The statute and regulations authorize the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation to require manufacturers of domestic and commercial cleaning products distributed, sold, or offered for sale in New York State to furnish information regarding such products in a form prescribed by the Commissioner.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for the full disclosure of product ingredients on all consumer products. These products should avoid ingredients linked to human health or environmental hazards. Product disclosure programs are good first steps in improving consumer transparency and education. We encourage all consumers to read the label of all cleaning products and opt to choose products that contain safer options.

If you are looking for safer methods to manage pests, please visit our ManageSafe page and our Safer Choice page. Alternatively, EPA has a Safer Choice labeling program for cleaning products that evaluates the human and environmental risks of cleaning ingredients. Click here to see examples of Safer Choice Products.

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

Source: National Law Review

(Beyond Pesticides, June 12, 2018) Two recent studies are contributing to the growing understanding that challenges basic toxicological precepts as inadequate to comprehensive assessments of impacts, particularly in the realm of human exposures to chemicals. One investigation tackles the role of chemical pesticide exposures in the risk of developing Parkinson’s Disease. That study appeared in The FASEB (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology) Journal in April 2018. The other, published earlier this year in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, assesses potential negative health outcomes of long-term, low-dose exposure to admixtures of chemicals that more realistically represent real-life exposures than those typically created in a lab setting — one chemical at a time.

A basic concept of the classical scientific method is that relationships among phenomena, whether causal or associative, can be evaluated only through the isolation and consideration of elements one at a time. A core tenet of toxicology is the dose-response notion: that the lesser or greater the dose or exposure, the smaller or larger, respectively, the organismic response will be. Paracelsus is credited for the terse summary, “The dose makes the poison.” Most research into the health and environmental risks of toxic chemicals in the materials stream has been guided by these concepts. Most U.S. regulations governing what chemicals can be used have been informed by such research.

The first study looks at the role of chemical exposures in the risk of developing Parkinson’s Disease (PD), a relationship first identified in 1998; researchers have continued to study such relationships in the ensuing three decades. The variables implicated have long included a variety of pesticide compounds; research continues to examine which ones, at what levels of exposure, and by what mechanism(s) act to expedite development of the disorder. During the past 20 years, the related role of genetic predisposition to development of PD has come under increased scrutiny. Now, new research demonstrates that for people with a specific genetic mutation on chromosome #4, exposure to the agricultural pesticides paraquat and maneb — even at very low levels — can increase the risk of a PD diagnosis by approximately 250%.

PD is a progressive neurogenerative disorder that occurs when nerve cells in the substantia nigra region — a basal ganglia structure in the midbrain — are damaged or destroyed and can no longer produce dopamine, a neurotransmitter that helps mediate motor function. The disease exhibits a variety of symptoms, including loss of muscle control, trembling, and poor coordination.; it may additionally cause anxiety, constipation, dementia, depression, urinary difficulties, and sleep disturbances. Over time, symptoms intensify. Approximately one million people in the U.S. have PD, with 60,000 cases diagnosed each year; 7–10 million people suffer with it worldwide. It is the second-most-common, age-related neurogenerative disease; Alzheimer’s is the first.

Intriguingly, this in vitro study at the University of Guelph, Ontario reveals what transpires at the cellular level when both risk factors — the genetic mutation and exposure to these chemicals — are present. Exposure, even at very low levels, of dopamine-producing neurons (grown from stem cells) containing the mutation prevented the mitochondria, cells’ “power plants,” from functioning correctly, depriving the neurons of essential energy and causing them to fail. Cells that lack the mutation require higher doses before their function is compromised. The net is that exposure to these pesticides increases the risk of PD, and even small levels of exposure for people with the genetic mutation may increase risk greatly.

Critical exposure levels for the mutation-carrying cells are lower than the levels designated as “maximum safe” by regulations of the Canadian Environmental Protection Authority, and lower than the lowest observed effect level previously reported by U.S. regulators. The study’s lead author, Dr. Scott Ryan, says that on the basis of these outcomes, the current approach to regulation — “one level fits all” — should be abandoned, adding, “This study shows that everyone is not equal, and these safety standards need to be updated in order to protect those who are more susceptible and may not even know it.” His conclusion underscores one shortcoming of the “dose makes the poison” tenet in the realm of human exposure to potentially toxic chemicals.

The second study is an international effort whose publication is titled, “Six months’ exposure to a real life mixture of 13 chemicals below individual NOAELs induced non monotonic sex dependent biochemical and redox status changes in rats.” (The NOAELs in the title stands for no-observed-adverse-effect-levels.) In a 24-week toxicity study, the project administered to the rodents “mixtures containing carbaryl, dimethoate, glyphosate, methomyl, methyl parathion, triadimefon, aspartame, sodium benzoate, calcium disodium ethylene diamine tetra-acetate, ethylparaben, butylparaben, bisphenol A, and acacia gum at doses of 0, 0.25, 1, or 5 times the respective Toxicological Reference Values” — toxicological indices that, when compared with exposure, are used to qualify or quantify a risk to human health.

Most research on chemical exposures is done at much higher “dosage” levels and utilizing exposures to single compounds; this experiment created circumstances that more closely mimic much of actual human exposure: to multiple compounds and at modest levels. Its methodology addresses flaws inherent in most research on chemical toxicity: both the high-dosage protocols and the “one at a time” approach that fails to consider the nature and significance of synergistic or sequential exposure phenomena. Observed effects in the rats include significant weight gain (in males), liver toxicity, and adaptive responses to redox status. (“Redox status” can be understood as the body’s ability to maintain a balance of reductive and oxidative processes, or more simply, to respond to the presence of molecules that promote inflammation in a way that keeps it in check).

What is particularly notable is that the liver toxicity and redox status effects showed non-monotonic dose–response curves. To provide some context for that: a classic “dose makes the poison” response means that as dosage rises, the severity of organismic response increases correspondingly; such dose–response correspondence is termed “monotonic.” A non-monotonic dose–response curve will look quite different — if graphed, it will often appear as either a “U” or an inverted “U,” or sometimes take an entirely irregular path. The importance of the non-monotonic curve in this research is its representation that serious health impacts occurred at low doses, or exposure levels. Such responses contravene the “dose makes the poison” tenet that underlies not only toxicology broadly, but also, the regulation of toxic chemicals by government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.

Some scientists long ago pointed to the inadequacy of the traditional toxicological approach, including endocrine disruption researchers Theo Colborn and John Peterson Myers, who wrote (with Dianne Dumanoski) the groundbreaking Our Stolen Future. A decade ago, Beyond Pesticides addressed this in an article in its journal, Pesticides and You. Beyond Pesticides has also repeatedly identified the need to consider synergistic and low-dose exposures in the development of genuinely protective public health and environmental regulations. It is critical that more research is done to address these two under-explored aspects, and that such research be used in regulation of potentially toxic chemicals.

Sources: https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/mechanics-of-pesticide-parkinson-s-link-revealed and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691518302011?via%3Dihub

(Beyond Pesticides, June 11, 2018)  With news that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allows Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate to be used despite evidence that it causes developmental effects following low-dose exposure, it is crucial that citizens demand that local governments provide the protection that EPA refuses. A pilot study —the first stage of the Global Glyphosate Study by the Ramazzini Institute (Italy) released in May— found that doses of either glyphosate or Roundup considered “safe” by EPA produce genotoxicity, alterations in sexual development, and changes in the intestinal microbiome.

Tell your local leaders to take action to protect families from pesticides!

This study adds to the urgent need for action, given previous findings that Roundup is: (1) linked to cancer by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and its subsequent listing on California’s Prop 65 (“chemicals known to cause cancer”) list; (2) promoted by its manufacturer, Monsanto, on the basis of questionable research practices; and (3) challenged in a consensus statement by scientists and medical doctors.

Glyphosate is not the only pesticide to which we all, including children, are exposed in schools and parks, but it is widely used and portrayed as “safe.” In order to protect children, our local governments and school districts should adopt these policies:

1. A precautionary approach to use of toxic chemicals –when in doubt, throw it out;
2. Organic land management practices, which create healthy environments and playing fields by building healthy soils;
3. Techniques not reliant on pesticides –such as using a steam machine or goats to manage weeds in difficult situations;
4. Limiting chemical use to an allowed list of organic-compatible fertilizers and pest control materials (see Products Compatible with Organic Landscape Management); and
5. An organic land management policy that protects children, families, and the local ecology.

If your community has not already acted to stop glyphosate use and adopt an organic land management policy, start the ball in motion in your town with the following letter to your local elected officials.

Tell your local leaders to take action to protect families from pesticides!

(Beyond Pesticides, June 8, 2018) In the wake of U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) approval of the buyout of Monsanto by Bayer, the new mega-corporation — now the world’s largest agrochemical and seed company — has announced that it will drop the “Monsanto” name, possibly as soon as late summer, when the acquisition is expected to be completed. Bayer first needs to sell off $9 billion in assets to German chemical giant BASF in compliance with a DOJ antitrust agreement that will permit the merger. The union of these two corporations, which joins Bayer’s pesticide business with Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) seed operations, faced vigorous opposition from health and environment advocates both in the U.S. and abroad.

Fortune magazine has pointed out that dropping a well-known name is unusual, but given that Monsanto is one of the world’s most-hated companies, perhaps the move is understandable. Ditching the “Monsanto” moniker is reportedly one aspect of a coming Bayer campaign to regain public trust and make efforts to engage with critics, according to Bayer spokespeople. Liam Condon, president of Bayer’s Crop Science Division, has said, “Just changing the name doesn’t do so much — we’ve got to explain to farmers and ultimately to consumers why this new company is important for farming, for agriculture and for food, and how that impacts consumers and the environment. Confirming the name Bayer is just one step. . . . Of course, there needs to be a lot more engagement.”

It is not yet clear what such “engagement” might mean, but Bayer is working hard at reconstructing perception of the company now that it has acquired Monsanto. Bayer CEO Werner Baumann added, “We will apply the same rigor to achieving our sustainability targets as we do to our financial targets.” He said, “We aim to deepen our dialogue with society. We will listen to our critics and work together where we find common ground. . . . Agriculture is too important to allow ideological differences to bring progress to a standstill. We have to talk to each other. We need to listen to each other. It’s the only way to build bridges.” When asked if Bayer will continue Monsanto’s underhanded business practices (see next paragraph), Mr. Baumann said, “The new entity will be managed ‘according to our standards,’ adding that ‘Bayer stands for transparency, reliability and a different style of debate.’”

Building the bridges that Mr. Baumann references will be a tall order. There is obviously great concern at Bayer about the baggage that comes with the Monsanto name and history. Monsanto has long been criticized for its products, including genetically engineered (GE) seeds and toxic pesticides. Among the latter was the devastating Agent Orange, used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War and causing terrible harm to the land and people of Vietnam, and to U.S. military members who were in country during its use. The company has also drawn the ire of health, agriculture, and environment advocates for its campaigns to discredit researchers and anti-GE and environmental activists, and its bullying tactics toward farmers to “protect” what it has seen as its proprietary interests. It has drawn significant pushback on the health and environmental safety of its popular herbicides Roundup (which contains toxic glyphosate) and dicamba. Adding to its unsavory reputation is Monsanto’s manufacture, during its 177-year history, of such dubious products as the pesticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), saccharin and aspartame, polystyrene, and nuclear weapons (1943–1945 for the Manhattan Project).

Yet, Bayer has its own issues, as Beyond Pesticides covered a couple of years ago. “Bayer’s parent company, Bayer AG, was part of the German chemical conglomerate I.G. Farben [IGF], which ran slave-labor factories during the Holocaust. . . . IGF also had a decisive share in a company that made Zyklon B gas, used to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz [and] was intimately involved with the human experimental atrocities committed by Mengele at Auschwitz.” Bayer also manufactures neonicotinoid pesticides, which are disastrous for pollinators, and bisphenol-A, a chemical known to have damaging impacts on the human endocrine system.

Last year saw two other unions of giants: a Dow Chemical and DuPont (now DowDuPont) merger, and China’s National Chemical Company’s (ChemChina’s) buyout of Syngenta. These moves serve to concentrate further the control of global seed and pesticide markets; such concentration is always a worry and is why anti-trust laws exist, yet these corporations were able to navigate regulations to achieve this degree of consolidation. Together, DowDuPont, ChemChina, and the “new” Bayer would control nearly 70% of the world’s pesticide market, 80% of the U.S. corn-seed market, and 90% of the soybean market. The new Bayer alone is projected to control 29% of the world’s seeds and 24% of its pesticides. These are alarming statistics for people concerned about the impacts of chemical-intensive agriculture.

Advocates continue to be vocal in opposition to the merger and what they expect from the newly minted mega-company. One concern has been that Bayer would use the moment as an opportunity to introduce GE crops to Europe; the European Union has been circumspect about them, and some countries have outright banned certain varieties of GE seeds. In 2016, Bayer CEO Werner Baumann indicated that the new company would not introduce GE crops in Europe. At the time, he said, “We aren’t taking over Monsanto to establish GM [GE] plants in Europe. Some people think it might be easier for us than for Monsanto, given the reputation we enjoy, but that’s not our plan. If politics and society in Europe don’t want genetically modified seeds, then we accept that, even if we disagree on the substance.”

The reliability of such reassurance will unfold in the coming years, but there are other fronts for concern. Farmers worry about undue influence on them to expand their use of the new company’s products, corporate control of data on farmers’ practices, and ratcheted-up pressure for chemical-dependent farming. Advocates’ distress about the use of toxic pesticides is unlikely to diminish.

As The Guardian reports, “Adrian Bebb, a food and farming campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said Bayer’s decision to ditch the Monsanto name would not alter the company’s legacy. ‘Bayer will become Monsanto in all but name unless it takes drastic measures to distance itself from the US chemical giant’s controversial past. . . . If it continues to peddle dangerous pesticides and unwanted GMOs then it will quickly find itself dealing with the same global resistance that Monsanto did. . . . This merger will create the world’s biggest and most powerful agribusiness corporation, which will try to force its genetically modified seeds and toxic pesticides into our food and countryside. . . . The coming together of these two is a marriage made in hell — bad for farmers, bad for consumers and bad for our countryside.”

Beyond Pesticides, in its Daily News Blog of September 19, 2016, noted that the Bayer–Monsanto merger — because the new entity will create a near-monopoly that will allow it to increase prices — may offer only short-term financial stability to the company, while increasing the wealth of top executives and raising food costs. “Observers say that in the long-term, the market will reveal that relying on the promotion of chemical-intensive agricultural practices is not a sustainable business practice. Chemical-intensive agriculture depends on chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides that have been shown to reduce soil organic matter and decrease the diversity of soil biota. These chemical inputs contaminate waterways, leading to ‘dead zones’ where nothing is able to live or grow. Eventually, as chemical-intensive agriculture depletes organic matter in the soil and there is nothing left with which to grow food or sustain life, toxic chemical inputs will become obsolete. Sustainability advocates say that the only way that the agricultural industry can create a sustainable business model is to produce products that are compatible with organic agriculture.”

Good organic practices work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance that makes chemical fertilizers and toxic synthetic pesticides obsolete. Claims that organic agriculture cannot feed the world because of lower yields are contested by scientific studies showing that organic yields are comparable to conventional yields and require significantly lower inputs. Organic agriculture advocates say that it is necessary not only to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals, but also, to ensure the long-term sustainability of food production.

The Bayer buyout of Monsanto also has organic farmers worried. Kristina Hubbard, director of advocacy and communications for the Organic Seed Alliance, notes that “the National Organic Program’s regulations on organic seeds generally dictate that growers must use organic seeds to grow their crops. But there is an exception granted for non-organic seed when ‘an equivalent organically produced variety is not commercially available.’ That exemption is important because currently the supply [of organic seeds] isn’t sufficient to meet the diverse and regional needs of all organic farmers. With continued consolidation in the seed industry, farmers that rely on those non-organic seed options may find themselves faced with even fewer options as the merged companies cut down on research and development.”

In the advocacy community, the name change surely will not keep people from monitoring the new Bayer, and exposing the harm that comes with toxic pesticides and near-monopolies on seeds. See Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture webpage.

Primary source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/04/why-monsanto-is-no-more/?utm_term=.23158e15b440

(Beyond Pesticides, June 7, 2018) Health Canada is proposing to phase out a number of uses of neonicotinoids in order to mitigate risks to pollinators. The agency has completed its review of clothianidin and thiamethoxam — two neonicotinoids that have been linked to pollinator decline and finds risks of concern for bees. However, these measures do not go as far as those recently made in the European Union, but further than label restrictions issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Health Canada concluded its Pollinator Re-evaluation for clothianidin and thiamethoxam after examining hundreds of laboratory and outdoor field studies that examined the possible effects on bees from wide-ranging situations. The agency finds that uses of these neonicotinoids have “varying degrees of effects on bees,” and that some uses “may pose a risk of concern to bees.” However, instead of a complete ban of the neonicotinoids, the agency is proposing mitigation measures to minimize potential exposure to bees, which includes the phase-out of many uses and certain additional product label statements.

Clothianidin will see a phase-out of the following uses:

• Foliar application to orchard trees and strawberries, and
• Foliar application to municipal, industrial and residential turf sites.

There will also be a reduction in the maximum number of foliar applications to cucurbit vegetables — to one per season. Seeds coated with clothianidin will be required to have additional label statements that would address dust off during planting of cereal crops.

For thiamethoxam the following uses are to be phased out:

• Foliar and soil application to ornamental crops that will result in pollinator exposure,
• Soil application to berry crops, cucurbit crops, and fruiting vegetables, and
• Foliar application to orchard trees.

Foliar applications to legumes, outdoor fruiting vegetables, and berry crops will have prohibition restrictions before and/or during bloom. Additional label statements will also be required for cereal and legume seeds coated with thiamethoxam.

As part of the re-evaluation, the agency looked at situations where honey bees come into contact with the neonicotinoids while visiting flowers, consuming pollen and nectar, and exposure to water and dust, as well as how developing bees and the whole colony are affected. Other species of bees, like bumble bees and solitary bees, were also considered. The proposed decisions for each of the neonicotinoids are subject to a 90-day public comment period, and comments may submit to Health Canada.

Health Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collaborate on their pollinator assessments, which are based on the jointly developed harmonized Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. EPA recently ended its public comment period for the ecological impacts of the neonicotinoids, with the separate pollinator assessments released last year. EPA’s risk assessments find deadly impacts to birds from neonicotinoid-treated seeds, poisoned insect prey, and contaminated grasses. Researchers have found that tiny amounts of neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction. A recent study by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers found neonicotinoids widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that harm aquatic insects, and potentially the aquatic food web—the foundation of healthy aquatic ecosystems.

The Beyond Pesticides report Poisoned Waterways documents the persistence of neonicotinoids in U.S. waterbodies and the danger they cause to aquatic organisms, resulting in complex cascading impacts on the aquatic food web. The report also highlights current regulatory failures of EPA aquatic standards, which continue to underestimate risks to sensitive species, due to a reliance on test protocols that do not reflect real-world exposures or susceptibilities.

In 2016, Health Canada released its aquatic assessment of imidacloprid which found that the pesticide was building up in the surface and groundwater water and causing widespread death among aquatic insects. Its interim recommendation then was to ban imidacloprid from most agricultural and outdoor uses entirely, however, a final decision has been delayed.

Lisa Gue, an environmental health policy analyst at the David Suzuki Foundation, says Health Canada’s results were not as complete as European work, but she remains pleased the agency is still moving to phase out the pesticide’s use. “Canada’s decisions are coming in much less protective than in the European Union,” Ms. Gue said.

The European Food Safety Authority in February confirmed its findings that most uses of neonicotinoids pose a risk to wild bees and honey bees. In April, the European Union member states voted in favor of a total ban on the use of neonicotinoids by the end of 2018, except when used inside closed greenhouses. This was an extension on an initial ban issued in 2013.

The loss of bees represents a significant issue for food sources, since about one-third of food crops require pollinators for production.  Numerous scientific studies implicate neonicotinoid pesticides as key contributors to the global decline of pollinator populations. EPA’s own scientists have found that neonicotinoids pose far-reaching risks not only to bees but to birds and aquatic invertebrates.

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

Source: Health Canada; Global News

(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2018) By the close of 2018, three top neonicotinoid (neonic) pesticides, linked to the worldwide decline in bee populations, will be banned for outdoor use in the European Union (EU), based on the General Court of the European Union’s (GCEU) ruling last month. The GCEU, the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled in favor of taking precautionary action to protect pollinators from clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam. This ruling allows for the limited use of neonic-treated seeds grown in permanent greenhouses where contact with bees is not expected.

In its lawsuit, multinational seed and chemical companies, Syngenta and Bayer –manufacturers of the neonics in question– argued unsuccessfully that the pesticides do not necessarily harm bees if farmers use them according to label instructions. Syngenta also sought compensation of approximately $435 million to offset market losses resulting from the ban, but that, too, was denied. In rejecting the arguments of Syngenta and Bayer, the high court aligned itself with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and its assessment of the harm caused by the widely used pesticides. EFSA’s updated assessment, released in February of this year, provided convincing evidence that neonics represent a risk to wild bees and honey bees. They disorient the bees by disrupting their navigation skills and ability to pollinate, collect nectar, and return to their hives to process the nectar into honey. The GCEU verdict comes just weeks after the EU voted to extend the ban on the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam in flowering crops that it already had in place on the three neonicotinoids since 2013.

In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been reluctant to take action on neonics, despite the existence of multiple, independent scientific, peer-reviewed papers demonstrating their hazards to pollinators and non-target organisms. In fact, the agency’s own scientists have concluded that neonics pose far-reaching risks to birds and aquatic invertebrates. They also found that neonics poison insect prey and contaminate grasses as well as bee pollinators. Yet, a hesitancy to take preemptive action on particularly damaging pesticides has pervaded the agency for years under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). When setting allowable uses of the pesticides in agriculture, EPA utilizes risk assessment reviews with extreme limitations when evaluating the registration or registration review of a food use pesticide in combination with its non-food uses. The agency has been criticized by Beyond Pesticides for not fully accounting for the uncertainties associated with safety data gaps, preexisting conditions, label compliance/accidents, mixtures and synergism, ecological and biological complexities (from soil microbiota to gut microbiome), while ignoring the question of need or essentiality. When evaluating ecological effects, EPA weighs the “economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits” associated with a given pesticide to determine whether an “unreasonable risk to human health and the environment” will occur. The problem with this approach is that it fails to allow for the prioritization of ecological protection. (See Beyond Pesticides, Pesticides and You, Thinking Holistically When Making Land Use Decisions.) Therefore, even in the face of compelling scientific evidence of harm, such as is the case with the three neonics, the revocation of pesticide registrations has proven difficult.

FIFRA markedly contrasts with the registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemical (REACH) standard in the EU, which explicitly “aims to improve the protection of human health and the environment through the better and earlier identification of the intrinsic properties of chemical substances” under the law’s precautionary principle. In striking contrast, FIFRA aims to manage and weigh acceptable risks instead of privileging human and environmental health protection. Moreover, it is well-known that EPA interprets FIFRA to exclude precautionary action, which is a core principle embedded in the EU’s environmental law, and the standard used by GCEU to support its decision to uphold the EU ban the neonics. Beyond Pesticides has argued, however, that under the FIFRA “no unreasonable adverse effects” standard, it is not reasonable to expose the public and environment to a toxic pesticide when there is a less or non-toxic method or substance to achieve that target pest management objective.

In the lawsuit, the GCEU relied heavily on arguments documenting the need for the precautionary principle to be applied when considering the ban on the three neonics. Implementation of the precautionary principle allows restrictions to be placed on a chemical when a suspicion of harm exists, even in the absence of conclusive evidence. According to Eur-Lex, the official website of EU law, it “enables a rapid response to be given in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.”

This guiding principle of taking precautionary action before extreme environmental impacts are demonstrated from exposure to a given toxic chemical is lacking in U.S. policy making processes. One notable exception is the National Organic Program’s legally-mandated review of synthetic chemicals petitioned for inclusion on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) regulations, which govern how organic food is grown, handled, and processed, prohibit the use of synthetic substances except under certain limited circumstances. To determine whether a normally prohibited substance will be allowed in organic, an assessment is made about its human health and environmental impacts, its essentiality in the agricultural system, the availability of alternatives, and its compatibility and consistency with organic systems of food production. This review process ensures that precautionary action is taken to prevent organic production systems, farmers, and farmworkers from being subjected to the harm associated with the most toxic chemicals used in agriculture.

In the face of this historic court decision in Europe to uphold a ban on three of the most egregious neonics, it is incumbent upon U.S. regulators to follow suit and take action to protect pollinators from these hazardous pesticides. Help persuade EPA to take substantive action on neonics by urging your Congressional Representative to support Saving America’s Pollinators Act of 2017. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ website for a sample letter.

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

Source:  Politico; General Court of the European Union; European Food Safety Authority

(Beyond Pesticides, June 5, 2018) After more than 100,000 Swiss citizens signed a petition calling for a ban on pesticides, Switzerland will soon have to vote on a complete ban on the use of synthetic pesticides. The ban would apply to farmers, industries, and imported goods, and advocates hope this measure would cause other EU nations to follow.

Switzerland, home of the world’s largest pesticide manufacturer, Syngenta, has been engaged in the debate raging across the European Union (EU) about the future use of pesticides. Recently, the EU reapproved glyphosate (Roundup) after months of deadlock, while certain countries like France have indicated that it will ban the chemical within three years. Now, the Swiss initiative, according to the BBC, will make it the first country in Europe to ban all synthetic pesticides, and the second in the world after Bhutan imposed a ban in 2013.

Swiss group, Future3, advocated for a ban and began collecting signatures in a crowd-funded initiative. More than 100,000 signatures have been collected, and on May 25, the details of the signatures will be checked and transferred to the Federal Council – the Swiss federal cabinet – which has one year to give recommendations to parliament. The legislators then have two further years to accept the initiative and schedule a vote or to come up with a counter initiative that could also feature on the ballot. If passed, all synthetic pesticides would be phased out over a period of 10 years.

“To not use any pesticides will trigger a complete change in agricultural practices,” said Antoinette Gilson who is with the Swiss citizens’ group Future3 that are pushing for the ban. “It might be difficult to go through, but in Switzerland already around 13% of farmers are organic. I talk to a lot of them and I have not met one who has regretted giving up pesticides.”

The ban would also apply to imports which could have significant impacts on neighboring countries as Switzerland imports almost 500kg of food per head of population, according to figures from the Federal Customs Administration. Supporters of the initiative think that if the Switzerland vote is eventually carried, it will have reverberated effect on other countries. Unsurprisingly, farmers and industry representatives are dismissive of the idea of the referendum, saying that it is too extreme and will not gain popular support.

With tensions high over the review of Monsanto’s controversial glyphosate, other harmful pesticides, and industry’s influence in decision-making processes, the European Parliament decided to set up a special committee to look into the EU’s authorization procedure for pesticides. The special committee is to assess the authorization procedure for pesticides in the EU and potential failures in how substances are scientifically evaluated and approved.

In April, EU member states backed a proposal to further restrict uses of bee-toxic neonicotinoids finding the pesticides’ outdoor uses harm bees. These restrictions go beyond those already put in place in 2013, and now all outdoor uses of clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam will be banned. The European Commission, the protection of bees is an important issue since it concerns biodiversity, food production, and the environment. The new restrictions agreed to on April 27 go beyond the 2013 ban. All outdoor use of the three substances will be banned and the neonicotinoids in question will only be allowed in permanent greenhouses where no contact with bees is expected. French scientists say parts of their country’s forests, streams, and bucolic landscapes could be completely devoid of birdsong this year, as the results of two recent studies show staggering declines in bird populations throughout the nation linked to the intensification of agricultural practices and pesticide use.

While the U.S. continues to languish in regulatory inertia, the best way to avoid 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 the 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 the judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.

As evidence of the hazardous effects of glyphosate continues to mount, environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to ban or restrict the use of the chemical and other toxic synthetic pesticides.

Source: BBC News

Graphic will confuse consumers who do not realize the product contains genetically engineered ingredients.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 4, 2018) As the deadline approaches for regulations on labeling genetically engineered (GE or GMO —genetically modified organism) food, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has proposed a rule that fails in every important respect:

• It allows information to be conveyed by QR codes, whose use requires a cell phone (with camera function) and a reliable broadband connection.
• It allows GE food to be identified as “bioengineered” OR by a smiley-faced symbol containing the letters “be.”
• It does not cover highly processed GE foods, like vegetable oils or sugar, and does not include newer genetic engineering techniques, such as CRISPR (a gene editing tool).
• Implementation is delayed.

USDA is accepting comments through Regulations.gov. For quick copy and paste, use the text below to comment at regulations.gov. Add a personal message at the beginning about why this is important to you, if possible.

Tell USDA We Need Honest, Transparent, Informative GE/GMO Labeling

Suggested Comments:

As a consumer, I have a right to know whether my food is produced using genetic engineering. As USDA finalizes labeling regulations, please ensure that labels are honest, transparent, and informative by adopting the following policies:

1. Reject package labeling with unreliable “QR codes” and other discriminatory communication methods; such options discriminate against more than 100 million Americans — especially many in rural communities, as well as low-income, people of color, and elderly populations that tend disproportionately to lack access to these technologies.
2. Require labeling to use only common, well-established labeling terms, such as GE or GMO. Do not allow these to be replaced with the term “bioengineered,” or the entirely unfamiliar acronym “be.”
3. Require neutral symbols: The disclosure law permits the use of symbols instead of text, but the proposed symbol — which conveys a blatant bias with its “smiley face” sun — should be prohibited, and only the acronym “GE” or “GMO” should be allowed as shorthand.
4. Require all foods produced with genetic engineering — including highly processed oils and sugars — to be labeled.
5. Include new and future methods of genetic engineering, such as gene editing (including CRISPR).
6. Require companies to use GMO content labels by January 1, 2020, and reject the proposed delay until 2022.
7. Ensure harmonization with the European Union by requiring disclosure if unintended GE contamination exceeds the current level of detection.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2018) States and civil society organizations launched new lawsuits in late May against the Pruitt Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its continued attack against farmworker health and safety. Two separate lawsuits, one filed by attorneys general in the states of California, Maryland, and New York, and another by health and justice advocates represented by Earthjustice and Farmworker Justice take aim at EPA’s decision to delay the implementation of training requirements designed to protect farmworkers and their families. This is the latest in a series of lawsuits which began when EPA announced it would delay the Certification of Pesticide Applicators Rule in May of last year.

Under the Obama administration, EPA released new rules updating farmworker protections after over 20 years of inaction. These rules are important because unlike your average American worker, farmworkers do not have protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). At its introduction, the new standards raised the age to apply toxic pesticides to 18, and improved the frequency and quality of training materials farmworkers are provided, among a number of other positive changes.

After EPA announced it would be delaying the implementation of these changes, and reviewing the age requirement, the agency provided stakeholders only four days for public comments. This led to a lawsuit by Earthjustice and other farmworker groups, and a ruling earlier this year by a U.S. District Court judge for the Northern District of California that EPA’s delay was a violation of the law.

These new lawsuits focus on EPA’s continued delay of the mandatory training requirement for farmworkers, which detail how pesticide safety for workers can be improved, and steps can be taken to reduce exposure to their children and loved ones after working all day in a contaminated field. Despite the fact that EPA has acknowledged that these materials have been ready for more than a year, the agency has refused to issue a Federal Register notice. Once announced, the improved training materials would become mandatory and required to take place within six months.

“EPA is refusing to provide official notice that upgraded materials are available,” said Earthjustice attorney Hannah Chang. “This should be a no-brainer. But because of EPA’s refusal, thousands of farmworkers will not receive the pesticide training they need to know their rights in the workplace, and to protect themselves and their families from pesticide exposure.”

Public health and farmworker groups note that these protections are critical as farmworker life expectancy is 49 years compared to 78 for the general population. This is similar to the life expectancy of individuals living in the 1850s.

“Farmworker women suffer grave reproductive health consequences, along with the other health issues that workers and community members face, because of pesticides exposure. The risk of detrimental health consequences is exacerbated when they are not applied correctly,” said Mónica Ramirez, president of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, a farmworker group represented in the current lawsuit. “Rigorous review by scientists and others has already determined that it was necessary to provide more training and increase regulation of these dangerous chemicals to protect the health of workers and community members. We are calling on the Trump Administration to put people’s lives and their health over cutting corners for corporate gain.”

Time and time again, the Pruitt EPA and the Trump Administration have taken the actions that benefit agrichemical corporations over the health of people. The administration has slashed EPA staff, kept highly toxic pesticides with known health risks on the market, and downgraded serious pesticide violations against farmworkers from $4.8 million to a $150,000 slap on the wrist.

Like the requirement that only those 18 and above handle highly toxic pesticides, implementation of these training requirements could slightly impact corporate profits. Unfortunately, despite being part of the negotiation process that produced the new farmworker standards under the Obama administration, the agrichemical industry does not appear to support simple protections for the workers they pay to grow their food and come in intimate contact with their hazardous products.

Before we ask you to take action, please listen to farmworkers tell their story in their own voice. At Beyond Pesticides 36^th National Pesticide Forum, four brave young agricultural and dairy workers participated in a panel discussion about what their lives were like working in agriculture and living in a farming community. For individuals unsure or unaware of the dangers of working in this industry, the discussion is required viewing and can be watched in full (~45 min) on Beyond Pesticides’ youtube page.

After you’ve taken time to hear their stories, act to protect farmworkers today. Tell your Congressional delegation to not allow EPA to eliminate minimum age requirements around highly toxic pesticides. More on the plight farmworkers face can be found on Beyond Pesticides’ Agricultural Justice webpage. Listen to speakers on farmworker health at the 36th National Pesticide Forum, Organic Neighborhoods: For healthy children, families, and ecology: Nayamin Martinez, MPH, executive director of Center California Environmental Justice Network, Fresno, CA; and, farmworker youth – Raul Garcia, Lety Loopez, Lupita Gonzalez, and Trinidad Moreno, introduced by Angel Garcia, founder and community organizer, Tulare County Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety, Lindsay, CA.

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

Source: EarthJustice

(Beyond Pesticides, May 31, 2018) Deforestation in tropical regions helps spread malaria, concludes a recent research study of the Amazon Rainforest. Published in Nature’s open-access journal, Scientific Reports, the study details researchers’ work, from 2009–2015, comparing patterns of deforestation to rates of malaria in nine states in the Brazilian rainforest. Investigators found that the highest malaria incidence concentrated in impacted patches of forest — areas deforested or otherwise degraded from an unmanaged or more-natural state.

These medium-sized patches (from .1 to 5 sq. km. in size) seem to be the “sweet spots” at which wood extraction activity (logging, charcoal production, et al.) correlate most strongly with malarial infection rates. The researchers suggest that the finding is perhaps related to the habitat preferences of the primary malaria vector in the region, Anopheles (Nyssorhynchus) darlingi, which breed most happily in shady, watery, edges of forest habitat. Sixty of the 380 mosquitoes in the genus Anopheles can transmit the malaria parasites.

Deforestation fragments the forest landscape, creating more forest “edges,” which means more places for mosquitoes to breed. This fragmentation may also help malaria-carrying mosquitoes spread to other areas as adults: “The new [fragmented] landscape delineated by the pattern of deforestation and soil occupation may favor dispersal of Ny. darlingi by creating forested areas interspaced by deforested areas, which are linked by forest corridors along [small streams] and shaded dirt roads,” note the researchers. They also discovered that the driest months in the region correlated with the heaviest logging activity, and therefore, increasing forest fragmentation and higher numbers of malaria cases. The deforestation activity itself can introduce malaria to areas previously untouched by the disease, via human loggers with previous exposure to the disease, who act as vectors as they move around the rainforest.

A leading cause of death in tropical regions, malaria continues to be a scourge in regions of Africa, Asia, and South America. As of 2016, 3.4 billion people across 91 countries face risk of infection and developing the disease, with more than 1 billion at high risk. In 2015, there were 212 million cases and 429,000 deaths globally; more than 90% of deaths were on the African continent (in the broad equatorial zone), and 2/3 of those were of children under 5 years of age. The disease varies widely in severity, and is generally curable if diagnosed and treated promptly and appropriately; among the symptoms of malaria can be fever, chills, sweating, nausea, vomiting, headache, body ache, enlarged spleen and/or liver, and mild jaundice, among others.

So how to combat malaria and the vectors that transmit it — particularly as rampant deforestation may cause spikes in malaria incidence? Reducing deforestation is an obvious, if daunting, goal. Medical approaches, once the disease is contracted, are limited; only a dozen or so antimalarial drugs are readily available for use, and there is significant malarial resistance to most of them. Without a reliable method for killing the parasite that causes the disease, approaches have tended to focus on killing the mosquitoes that transmit them. This has generally meant an abundant use of sprayed applications of insecticides, which are questionably effective and have myriad impacts related to their toxicity.

Beyond Pesticides has written, “Reliance on pesticides, especially DDT, as a silver bullet solution for malaria protection is extremely dangerous. When the underlying causes of pest problems are not adequately addressed, then a sustained dependence on toxic pesticides like DDT causes greater long-term problems than those that are being addressed in the short-term. Beyond Pesticides advocates the fighting of malaria without poisoning future generations of children in malaria hot spots. We should be advocating for a just world in which we no longer treat poverty and development challenges with poisonous band-aids, but instead, join together to address the root causes of insect-borne disease, because the chemical-dependent alternatives are ultimately deadly for everyone.”

From the 1940s until the 1960s, DDT — dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane — was the go-to control for mosquitoes that carry malaria. However, the compound was found to be extremely persistent in and harmful to the environment, and to accumulate in fatty tissue in humans. Exposure to DDT and its breakdown product DDE has been linked with impacts on fertility, immunity, hormones, and brain development, and with adverse health outcomes, such as breast cancer, diabetes, obesity, decreased semen quality, spontaneous abortion, impaired neurodevelopment in children, and even multigenerational effects.

In addition, its rampant overuse, both to control disease vectors and in agriculture, resulted in the development of significant resistance to the compound. Today, DDT resistance is widespread in Anopheles mosquitoes. As the Pesticide Action Network North America notes, “Of the 73 countries that provided monitoring data to WHO [the U.N.’s World Health Organization] from 2010 onward, 60 countries reported insect resistance to at least one insecticide and 50 reported resistance to 2 or more insecticides. This highlights the problem of relying on insecticide-based strategies for vector control. . . . Ultimately, disease vectors and parasites develop resistance to the insecticide and it becomes almost ineffective in the long run.”

Although DDT is no longer manufactured or used in much of the world (China is currently the largest manufacturer), its use continues in 19 countries. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972. In 2009, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Health Organization (WHO) announced an effort to fight malaria with incremental reduction of reliance on the synthetic pesticide DDT. As Beyond Pesticides has reported, WHO and the UNEP undertook an initiative, comprising a host of projects, aimed at reducing use of DDT worldwide by 30% by 2014 and a total phaseout by the early 2020s, while meeting malaria incidence targets. WHO sees these projects in the context of Integrated Vector Management (IVM), which it promotes as the approach of choice to control transmission of malaria and other vector-borne diseases. A key element of IVM is a solid evidence base for the effectiveness of combinations of locally adapted, cost-effective, and sustainable vector-control methods. This approach can facilitate a sustainable transition away from the use of DDT.

Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA) agrees, saying, “Vector control that uses community-based, least-toxic versions of IVM is more effective in the long-term than short-term toxic chemical controls. Pesticide Action Network has worked for a decade with communities in Senegal on use of IVM and observed significant reductions in malaria incidence.”

The problem of malaria in many affected regions is, in part, a development issue. Greater investment in living conditions, including those that suppress mosquito breeding — such as effective environmental and water body management (e.g., to limit breeding habitat) — as well as practices that keep mosquitoes out of people’s living spaces would go a long way to reducing disease occurrence. Improved healthcare and public education on personal protections would also support the effort. Low-tech and effective strategies include mosquito traps, bed nets, screening between outside and inside spaces, and personal repellents. Appropriate toolkits will differ somewhat, based on local conditions.

Check out all the mosquito prevention and management information on Beyond Pesticides’ mosquito management webpage and the Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy: For Decision Makers and Communities.

Source: https://news.mongabay.com/2018/05/study-links-deforestation-and-malaria-in-the-amazon/?utm_source=EHN&utm_campaign=da3be3d21f-Science_saturday&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8573f35474-da3be3d21f-99059849

(Beyond Pesticides, May 30, 2018) Six environmental groups have sued the Trump Administration for reversing a long standing interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treat Act (MBTA) that provides migratory bird protections from incidental killing or “taking” caused by industrial activities. The lawsuit, National Audubon Society v. Department of the Interior, was filed May 24, 2018 in the Southern District of New York, challenging as “unlawful and arbitrary and capricious the December 22, 2017 Solicitor’s Memorandum M-37050, which was issued by the office of the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) and reverses Defendants DOI’s and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“FWS” or “Service”) longstanding interpretation and implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.” The Act’s prohibition on the killing or “taking” of migratory birds has long been understood to extend to incidental take from industrial activities — meaning unintentional but predictable and avoidable killing.

Last year, the Trump Administration issued a Memorandum gutting federal protections for migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The plaintiffs, including American Bird Conservancy, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, are seeking to protect waterfowl, raptors, and songbirds under the MBTA.

In the Memorandum issued December 2017, the Administration abruptly reversed decades of government policy and practice — by both Democratic and Republican administrations — on the implementation and enforcement of the MBTA. Under the Administration’s revised interpretation, the MBTA’s protections will apply only to activities that purposefully kill birds. Any “incidental” take — no matter how inevitable or devastating the impact on birds — is now immune from enforcement under the law.

According to the coalition that filed the lawsuit, the risk of liability under the MBTA has long provided the oil and gas industry, wind energy development companies, and power transmission line operators with an incentive to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to minimize bird deaths. For example, in an effort to protect migratory birds and bats and avoid potential MBTA liability, the wind industry, conservation groups, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked to develop comprehensive guidelines aimed to ensure best practices for siting and developing wind farms. The Administration’s new policy eliminates this incentive for industries and individuals to minimize and mitigate foreseeable impacts of their activities on migratory birds, putting already-declining populations of our nation’s songbirds and other migratory birds at risk.

The MBTA allows for criminal enforcement actions to target incidental take resulting from industrial activities that foreseeably and predictably kill migratory birds, such as operating oil pits without precautions to protect birds, misapplying pesticides in areas known to be frequented by birds, operating contaminated waste treatment ponds in the absence of any measures to safeguard birds, and erecting power lines in areas with high concentrations of migratory birds. If incidental take liability is eliminated, industry will no longer need to take measures to protect birds from these hazards.

“The Trump administration’s rollback of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is an absolute disaster for America’s birds,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Many bird species are already declining from habitat destruction and a host of other threats. This rule will allow the death of even more birds, whether they’re landing on polluted ponds left uncovered by the oil and gas industry or have their nest trees cut down from underneath them. It’s tragic.”

In addition, when the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster spilled more than 210 million gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico more than 1 million birds were killed in the four years following the blowout. BP paid $100 million in fines under the MBTA that supported wetland and migratory bird conservation. The new interpretation would bar the federal government from seeking such mitigation under the MBTA for devastating oil spills in the future.

“We cannot let Secretary Zinke add one of the oldest and most important laws for birds to his list of anti-environmental giveaways, especially when birds are in critical need of protection. Drastically slashing the reach of the MBTA and removing accountability for preventable bird deaths is unacceptable,” said Katie Umekubo, Natural Resources Defense Council, senior attorney, nature program.

Populations of birds, like other pollinators, have been declining. Researchers have found that small amounts of pesticides like the neonicotinoids are enough to cause migrating songbirds to lose their sense of direction. Recently, French scientists and ornithologists say parts of their country’s forests, streams, and bucolic landscapes could be completely devoid of birdsong this year, as the results of data that show staggering declines in bird populations linked to the intensification of agricultural practices and pesticide use.

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

Source: Center for Biological Diversity