(Beyond Pesticides, July 27, 2018) The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued new guidelines for measures to lower children’s exposures to chemicals in food and food packaging that are tied to health problems such as obesity, metabolic changes, decreased birth weight, and endocrine disrupting effects, including reduced fertility. Exposures to these chemicals–added to food during processing or in food packaging–are disproportionately high among minority and low-income populations, according to the report, especially given inadequate federal regulation and oversight.

The guidelines, issued in both a statement and technical report by the AAP entitled, Food Additives and Child Health, came after the group decided to review and highlight emerging child health concerns related to “the use of colorings, flavorings, and chemicals deliberately added to food during processing (direct food additives) as well as substances in food contact materials.” Food additives, in particular, have been documented to be linked to endocrine disruption and other adverse health effects. According to AAP, “regulation and oversight of many food additives is inadequate because of several key problems in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Current requirements for a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) designation are insufficient to ensure the safety of food additives and do not contain sufficient protections against conflict of interest. Additionally, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have adequate authority to acquire data on chemicals on the market or reassess their safety for human health.”

Infants and children are more vulnerable to chemical exposures, but data about the health effects of food additives on infants and children are limited or missing. AAP identifies as compounds of concern, bisphenols, which are used in the lining of metal cans; phthalates, used in adhesives and plasticizers; nonpersistent pesticides, which have been addressed in a previous AAP policy statement; perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs), which are used in grease-proof paper and paperboard food packaging; and perchlorate, an antistatic agent used for packaging in contact with dry foods with surfaces that do not contain free fat or oil; nitrates and nitrites, and artificial food coloring.

For instance, bisphenol A (BPA) exposure in utero has been associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, and cross-sectional studies have associated BPA with decrements in fetal growth, childhood obesity. Certain phthalates are linked to adverse effects on male fetal genital development, and studies have shown PFCs to contribute to metabolic changes, decreased birth weight, and endocrine disrupting effects including reduced fertility. In 2012, AAP issued a statement of childhood exposures to pesticides recognizing that reducing pesticide exposures in foods may be significant for children. AAP also noted that choosing organic food, which has significantly lower toxic pesticide residues is also beneficial to larger environmental issues, as well as human health impacts like pollution and global climate change.

Specific recommendations to pediatricians and consumers include:

• Prioritize consumption of fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables when possible, and support that effort by developing a list of low-cost sources for fresh fruits and vegetables.
• Avoid processed meats, especially maternal consumption during pregnancy.
• Avoid microwaving food or beverages (including infant formula and pumped human milk) in plastic, if possible.
• Avoid placing plastics in the dishwasher.
• Use alternatives to plastic, such as glass or stainless steel, when possible.
• Look at the recycling code on the bottom of products to find the plastic type, and avoid plastics with recycling codes 3 (phthalates), 6 (styrene), and 7 (bisphenols) unless plastics are labeled as “biobased” or “greenware,” indicating that they are made from corn and do not contain bisphenols.
• Encourage hand-washing before handling foods and/or drinks, and wash all fruits and vegetables that cannot be peeled.

“The good news is there are safe and simple steps people can take right now to limit exposures, and they don’t have to break the bank,” said Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author of the statement and chief of the division of environmental pediatrics at New York University’s School of Medicine. “Avoiding canned food is a great way to reduce your bisphenol exposure in general, and avoiding packaged and processed food is a good way to avoid phthalates exposures,” Dr. Trasande said. He also suggested wrapping foods in wax paper in lieu of plastic wrap.

This far, higher urinary levels of these substances (e.g. BPA) have been inversely associated with family income. Given that obesity is well recognized to be more prevalent among low-income and minority children, disproportionate exposures to these obesogenic chemicals partially explain sociodemographic disparities in health, AAP explains. The group recommends that “substantial improvements” be made to regulate these substances including strengthening or replacing the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) determination process, updating the scientific foundation of the FDA’s safety assessment program, retesting all previously approved chemicals, and labeling direct additives with limited or no toxicity data.

Beyond Pesticides advocates in its program and through its Eating with a Conscience website choosing organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. The Eating with a Conscience database, based on legal tolerances (or allowable residues on food commodities), describes a food production system that enables toxic pesticide use both domestically and internationally, and provides a look at the toxic chemicals allowed in the production of the food we eat and the environmental and public health effects resulting from their use. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Food program page.

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

Source: New York Times

(Beyond Pesticides, July 26, 2018) A legal complaint filed by a Kansas farmer claims industry giant, Monsanto, knew its new dicamba-formulated product would harm other crops, but marketed and sold it anyway, damaging thousands of acres of crops. The lawsuit, filed by 4-R Farms based in Corning Kansas, lost over 200 acres of soybeans. This is the latest in a string of lawsuits Monsanto is facing. Farmers in Arkansas, Missouri, and elsewhere have been hit with crop losses as a result of the dicamba damage.

Advocates  and victims of damage argue that Monsanto places profits ahead of possible damage to crops when it markets seeds resistant to a powerful weedkiller before making a less volatile herbicide available. This, according to the lawsuit filed in court. The petition, filed last week, could be the catalyst for a class action lawsuit of Kansas farmers against Monsanto, which faces a growing docket of legal challenges. The lawsuit also names chemical company BASF as a co-defendant. BASF is facing its own mounting pile of lawsuits over dicamba. The lawsuit requests unspecified damages and a trial by a federal jury in Topeka.

Monsanto marketed its new line of dicamba products, Xtend, to go hand in hand with its genetically engineered (GE) seeds made to be resistant to dicamba. The goal was for farmers to treat their fields with dicamba to combat growing Roundup (glyphosate) weed resistance. The GE seeds were available first, without the accompanying dicamba product, and farmers were left to use older formulations. However, dicamba is highly volatile and can drift for miles impacting other nearby crops. The newly formulated pesticide was advertised as less volatile than previous versions. But as crop losses continued for the third straight year, this claim is turning out to be another false promise from Monsanto, as research by weed scientists found that the new product does volatilize enough to cause drift damage. “Defendants understood that such injuries would force farmers to defensively plant Xtend crops in future growing seasons and thereby increase the market,” the lawsuit claims.

“I think now as hard as things are on farmers and producers with tariffs and other difficulties in the markets, any hit they take on what is traditionally their strongest cash crop is particularly hard,” said Lee Cross, the Kansas City, Mo.-based lawyer who filed the lawsuit. The 2018 harvest will reveal the extent of damages both in acres and dollars in Kansas and at the more than 1,300-acre 4-R Farms, according to Mr. Cross.

Dicamba has not impacted Kansas as much as states to the east, like Missouri and Arkansas, where hundreds of complaints led to the states to take action on dicamba’s use. Already, Monsanto is facing a class action lawsuit in eastern Missouri from farmers alleging the volatile chemical damaged their crops.

As of July 7, nearly 600 complaints of dicamba damage have been filed by Arkansas farmers in 23 different counties. In Missouri, as of July 3, there are 123 cases of dicamba injury complaints under investigation and according to the Missouri Soybean Association, “More than 200,000 Missouri soybean acres currently show signs of suspected dicamba damage.” According to the University of Missouri, there are “600 cases being investigated by the state departments of agriculture and approximately 1.1 million acres of soybean estimated with dicamba injury by university weed scientists [in 14 states].”

Nationally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated 3.6 million acres — or about 4 percent of American soybeans — were damaged by dicamba in 2017. The Kansas Department of Agriculture reported it received complaints of dicamba damage from more than 213 farmers last year, according to the lawsuit.

Thus far, farmers across 10 states are suing Monsanto over dicamba damage to their crops. Steven W. Landers, et al v. Monsanto Company was filed on Jan. 26 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division. Kansas City law firm Randles & Splittgerber filed on behalf of Steven and Deloris “Dee” Landers and similarly harmed farmers in 10 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, according to EcoWatch. Farmers seek damages for claims including negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, conspiracy, disgorgement of profits and punitive damages. These cases contend the biotech giant knowingly marketed its Xtend cotton and soybean seeds to farmers without any “safe” herbicide.

Recently, the Justice Department allowed two already large agrichemical corporations, Bayer and Monsanto, to merge, despite strong voices of opposition from grassroots advocates across the country, and investigations by state Attorneys General. Bayer is opting to ditch Monsanto’s name, possibly as soon as late summer, when the acquisition is expected to be completed.

If you are concerned about the use of dicamba-based herbicides in agricultural areas where you live, contact your state department of agriculture and voice your concerns. Find their contact information through Beyond Pesticides’ state pages. For more information about the hazardous associated with GE agriculture, see our program page on genetic engineering.

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

Source: CJOnline; lawsuit

(Beyond Pesticides, July 25, 2018) The Village of Franklin Park has become the third and latest community in the state of Illinois to pass a resolution urging the state legislature to repeal its preemption statute, which prevents localities from passing laws that are stricter than the state’s pesticide law. The victory in Franklin Park comes after the Village of Oak Park and town of Evanston, IL both passed their own preemption repeal resolutions in February 2017. Advocates who pushed for these resolutions, including regional groups Go Green Oak Park and Midwest Pesticide Action Center (MPAC), are hoping Franklin Park’s move is a sign of more local action to come on this critical democratic principle. Meanwhile, Congress is considering a provision in the Farm Bill that will prohibit, or preempt, local municipalities from restricting pesticides in their jurisdictions.

“Illinois beekeepers reported the second highest bee mortality rate in 2015,” said MPAC’s Assistant Director and Communications Manager Ryan Anderson. “MPAC supports local action over state action in these cases where state pesticide regulations do not do enough to protect pollinators, children, and wildlife.”

A 1991 Supreme Court Case, Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, established that federal pesticide law – the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – created a policy floor, rather than ceiling. In other words, the Supreme Court indicated that states and communities were allowed to build stricter laws on top of the federal pesticide law. However, the Court nonetheless permitted states to pass laws that would create a ceiling for local communities within the state. This meant that local communities would be unable to build laws stricter than those the state has already passed. In response to the 1991 case, the pesticide industry went state by state to enact state-level preemption laws that prohibited localities from imposing stricter requirements around pesticide use.

In the case of Illinois, its preemption clause reads (p 15): “The regulation of pesticides by any political subdivision of this State, including home rule units, is specifically prohibited except for counties and municipalities with a population over 2,000,000. The regulation of pesticides under this Act is an exclusive power and function of the State…” This clause preempts all communities in the state save for Chicago and Cook County.

When first learning about preemption, local advocates are often shocked. This is because, in effect, these laws stop any potential for local governments to pass laws that apply to private property. That means the TruGreen truck that’s applied pesticides to homes throughout one’s neighborhood, or the uninformed neighbor constantly overspraying their property, are granted relative immunity to any local law aiming to restrict their hazardous practices.

“Forty three states have been preempted,” said Peggy McGrath, local organizer with Go Green Oak Park. “We truly need to to encourage as many municipalities as possible to adopt this resolution, not only in Illinois but other states as well. Otherwise no state general assembly will listen and amend the law to enable communities to regulate pesticides themselves. We all know corporations are presently winning, yet with no regard to the health effects for all of us, especially our children.”

But, as Franklin Park shows, there are ways local communities can fight back against democratic state preemption laws. First, local governments can establish themselves as models for their residents by passing laws that restrict pesticides applied to local government owned properties. Franklin Park’s integrated pest management policy does a good job of this by restricting highly toxic pesticides, using any toxic pesticides as a last resort, and encouraging alternative methods to manage pests and weeds. Reports indicate Franklin Park does not use pesticides on their local parks or other properties. The community’s sustainability webpage also encourages residents to follow natural lawn care practices, and provides links to helpful resources. After passing a law addressing public property, local governments in Illinois and in any state with pesticide preemption can follow the lead of Franklin Park, Oak Park, and Evanston by passing resolutions urging their state legislature to repeal preemption.

Franklin Park Mayor Barrett Pedersen told the Chicago Tribune of the resolution, “It’s the reason I got involved in public office — sustainability.”

Where there is not pesticide preemption, such as in the state of Maine, localities have shown a strong desire to pass laws that reflect their local values. Nearly 20 communities in Maine have restricted pesticide use on private property in some way, including comprehensive cosmetic pesticide restrictions passed in Ogunquit, South Portland, and earlier this year the most populous City in the state, Portland.

Despite progress at the local level, there are efforts in the 2018 Farm Bill to rewrite the nation’s pesticide law, FIFRA, to federally preempt all localities in the country. Although the House Farm Bill contains this disturbing language, the Senate version does not. Local and national groups are on the alert for this “poison pill” when the legislation goes into conference committee. In other words, advocates say that regardless of advances that may be in the Farm Bill, nothing is worth undermining the local democratic authority to advance sustainable practices and protect the health and environment at the community level.

Take action by contacting your local, state, and federal elected officials about this important issue. Individuals in Illinois can reach out to MPAC’s organizing team, and residents across the country can reach out to Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] of 202-543-5450 for assistance in changing their state’s preemption law. And, let your congressional delegation know that it is undemocratic to prohibit local authority to address pesticide issues and federal preemption of local authority in the Farm Bill is unacceptable. Click here to send a message to Congress.

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

Source: Franklin Park Resolution, Chicago Tribune

(Beyond Pesticides, July 24, 2018) The White House named Scott Hutchins, PhD, former Dow Chemical Company executive, as Undersecretary of Agriculture for Research, Education and Economics for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Dr. Hutchins is now the third Dow alumnus to be hired by the Trump Administration. As a scientist who oversaw Dow’s pesticide research and development, his appointment, if confirmed, has troubling consequences to USDA’s research programs.

Described as a “global leader of integrated field sciences,” Dr. Hutchins worked at Corteva—the newly created agricultural (pesticide and seed) division of the DowDuPont entity that focuses on “chemical solutions to pest management.” Dr. Hutchins has been with Dow since 1987 and worked in regional research and development management and global development of pesticide products. He is also a former president of the Entomological Society of America, serving in that role in parts of 2006 and 2007, and is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Nebraska.

The lead science position directs the Agricultural Research Service, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (ARS), the Economic Research Service and the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and sets the agenda for USDA’s research budget. Dow Chemical, now merged with Dupont as DowDupont, contributed over $1million to Trump’s 2016 campaign. Shortly after taking office, the former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) met privately with Dow. Weeks later, EPA reversed its decision to ban Dow’s highly neurotoxic pesticide, chlorpyrifos, despite the agency’s own scientists confirming elevated risks to children.

Last year, Sam Clovis was nominated for the position but the former radio host and business professor had no scientific credentials and his nomination was met with significant push-back, especially after he was named as an operative in the Russia scandal. Mr. Clovis eventually withdrew his nomination.

USDA’s ARS oversees research programs in a number of areas including nutrition and food safety, crop production and protection, animal health and natural resources, and the National Organic Program. USDA has typically invested billions of dollars annually on this research. It represents a significant support for the research science community and the discoveries that emerge from this work, as well as for a growing knowledge base to inform decision making and public policy. However, science at USDA has been increasingly undermined by growing industry influence. A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) finds that a myriad of personnel and policy decisions by the Trump administration have been undermining scientific integrity and transparency at the agency, weakening public safety and health protections, and puts agribusiness interests over those of the public, farmers, and rural communities.

Under the current leadership of Secretary, Sonny Perdue, USDA has cozied up with big industry with apparent interest in weakening public health protections. Several agency positions have gone to former industry lobbyists and staff, some of which have needed ethics waivers from the White House to be hired. USDA has attacked the science around EPA’s former proposal to ban chlorpyrifos, attacked the World Health Organization’s guidelines on antibiotic overuse in livestock, and rolled back standards to allow fewer healthier options for school meals that aim to arrest the spiking rate of childhood obesity. The agency has also taken steps to undermine the integrity of the organic label on food products. USDA has muzzled its own scientists who speak out about the negative impacts of pesticide use. USDA scientists with the Agricultural Research Service have been investigated and suffered consequences from the agency as a result of questioning research regarding the safety of certain pesticides.

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

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

Source: Mother Jones

(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2018) Whole Foods Quietly Put Its Comprehensive GMO Labeling Policy on Hold. As USDA’s proposal to use smiley face labels for genetically engineered (GE) foods or genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) nears implementation, it is more essential than ever that retailers step up to identify genetically engineered foods in their stores. Five years ago, Whole Foods Market announced a plan to label food with GE ingredients sold in its stores. Whole Foods’ plan requires a label for all GE food sold in its stores by the end of 2018, noting that the move was made in response to customers’ increased demand for labeled products. “Some of our manufacturers say they’ve seen a 15 percent increase in sales of products they have labeled [as non–GMO],” explains A.C. Gallo, Whole Foods president and chief operating officer. The chain’s labeling requirements include all of its North American stores, as its European supermarkets already require this label. Consumers Reports found that 92% of people surveyed (2014) want their food labeled for ingredients that are genetically engineered.

Tell Whole Foods and Owner Amazon to Get Back on Track in Labeling GMOs.

In an email to suppliers on May 18, 2018, Whole Foods’ Mr. Gallo announced that the company, which has recently been acquired by Amazon, would pause its GE labeling requirements in response to suppliers’ concerns about having to comply with two competing sets of rules –Whole Foods’ own labeling requirements and rules newly proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which were then open for public comment.

As currently written, Whole Foods’ requirements would be more stringent than the proposed USDA rules in at least two significant ways. First, USDA has suggested letting companies label GE ingredients by QR code, meaning that customers would need to be directed to a website via smartphone to find out what’s in their food, while Whole Foods never planned to allow QR codes as disclosures. Second, USDA rules contain exemptions for meat products, which are regulated under a different system.

The USDA proposed rule 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.

Given the problems with the USDA proposed rule, including delay in implementation until 2022, it is important for Whole Foods to get back on schedule. Other retailers will certainly follow its lead.

Tell Whole Foods and Owner Amazon to Get Back on Track in Labeling GMOs.

Letter to Whole Foods President and COO A.C. Gallo and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos:

Whole Foods established itself as a policy leader five years ago when it announced a plan to label food with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients sold in its stores. Whole Foods’ plan requires a label for all GE food sold in its stores by the end of 2018. The announcement of the plan noted that the move was made in response to customers’ increased demand for labeled products.

Just weeks ago, only six months before the labeling requirements were to go into effect, however, Whole Foods quietly put its policy on pause, citing possible conflicts with the requirements of the USDA’s proposed labeling regulations. The Whole Foods policy goes beyond the requirements of the USDA proposal and is more responsive to consumer demands. With a scheduled effective date at the end of this year, Whole Foods’ requirements would be in effect four years before USDA’s requirements.

Please be a leader on GE transparency. Consumers Reports found that 92% of people surveyed (2014) want their food labeled for ingredients that are genetically engineered. In the absence of a responsive federal government, consumers expect that responsible corporations will take action. Please take the Whole Foods GE policy off “pause” and implement it by the end of 2018.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, July 20, 2018) Algae are elemental to life on Earth as generators of most of the planet’s oxygen and as food for myriad organisms. In the food chain, as in all systems, balance is key; but in Florida, erupting algal blooms are evidence of a system wildly out of balance. Blue-green algae species are coating the surfaces of many of the state’s lakes. In the past month, algae on the state’s most-well-known water body — Lake Okeechobee — grew from a crescent in one corner of the lake to 90% coverage of its 370 square miles. Algae have grown out of control in part because of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, which arises from runoff from conventionally managed lands and from leaky septic systems. Beyond coating the lake surface, the slimy stuff is now found not only in the Caloosahatchee River, but also, along its entire canal system from Lake Okeechobee into downtown Fort Myers, and moving toward the river’s mouth on the southwest coast. Indeed, in early July, after touring the Caloosahatchee River estuary, Florida’s governor issued an emergency order to help state agencies in multiple counties better manage these harmful algal blooms in lakes, rivers, and coastal estuaries.

Such algae overgrowth arises from a concurrence of basic ingredients: ample warm water (think summer), sunlight, and pollution. Given that it is nigh impossible to control sunlight or water temperature — and water temperatures and extreme spring and summer rain events will likely worsen, given climate disruption — humans can have the greatest impact via their own contributing activities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates that, “The most effective preventative measures are those that seek to control anthropogenic influences that promote blooms such as the leaching and runoff of excess nutrients. Management practices for nutrients, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, should have the goal of reducing loadings from both point and nonpoint sources, including water treatment discharges, agricultural runoff, and stormwater runoff.”

Put simply: nitrogen and phosphorous, characteristic of agricultural runoff from the use of synthetic fertilizers, boost algal growth. The extremely common use of such fertilizers in chemical-intensive (conventional) agriculture and turf care is a huge contributor to the problem.

A primary fix for the epidemic of algal blooms is curbing nutrient pollution by avoiding use of synthetic fertilizers in agriculture, and in turf and landscape management (of golf courses, sports fields, lawns and gardens, etc.). The optimal way to do that is to adopt organic agricultural and land management practices. A Beyond Pesticides Pesticides and You journal article from 2014 notes, “Organic standards stipulate that soil fertility and crop nutrients can be managed through tillage and other cultivation practices, such as crop rotation [and use of compost as fertilizer], which preserve and maintain the fertility of the soil so that synthetic inputs become unnecessary. Organic, therefore, eliminates the need and use of synthetic nitrogen- and phosphorus-based fertilizers, thereby significantly reducing the threats that nitrogen and phosphorus runoff have on aquatic ecosystems and the prevalence of algal blooms and eutrophication [overgrowth of plant life and death of animal life from subsequent lack of oxygen].”

Synthetic fertilizers contain water-soluble nutrients, some of which are not absorbed by plants, but settle in the soil and then migrate toward groundwater and ultimately, water bodies. Organic agricultural and turf management practices, such as the use of compost to boost soil fertility — rather than dumping synthetic fertilizers into the soil — are effective solutions to the problem.

Organic methods feed the soil, rather than feeding plants directly. Organic fertility and soil amendments (such as compost) are not water soluble; they feed the microorganisms in the soil and the breakdown products of that process release nutrients that then feed plants. This slower process does not result in the runoff associated with water-soluble synthetic materials. The 1990 Organic Foods Production Act established regulations that permit only those soil inputs that do not adversely affect the “biological and chemical interactions in the agroecosystem, including the physiological effects of the substance on soil organisms.” Synthetic fertilizers are prohibited in certified organic systems. As Beyond Pesticides noted in the Fall 2017 issue of Pesticides and You, “While chemical-intensive land management relies on synthetic fertilizers that are soluble chemicals taken up by the plant and prone to run-off into waterways, organic systems rely on feeding the soil microbes, which in turn produce solubilized nutrients that are absorbed by the plant.”

Researchers on the issue of algal blooms and “dead zones” in Lake Erie (and other Great Lakes) were able to pinpoint the two major factors that explain their observation of marked increases in dissolved reactive phosphorus, which is nearly 100% bioavailable to algae. Those factors, they concluded, were “a combination of agricultural practices that have been put in place since the late 1980s and into the 2000s, combined with increased storms, particularly higher intensity spring rain events [attributable to climate change].” The agricultural practices the researchers reference include: a shift toward more fall fertilizer applications instead of spring applications, the use of broadcast fertilizer that does not integrate into the soil, and an increase in no-till field management that leads to a build-up of phosphorus in the top layers of soil. No-till methods concentrate fertilizers near the soil surface where they are more likely to wash away during strong storms.

People, of course, don’t like to see their favorite lakes or rivers covered in green slime. But the problems with algae overgrowth are not only aesthetic: the blooms choke off sunlight to underwater organisms that require it for photosynthesis, deplete oxygen in water and deprive other organisms of it, and can spread to ancillary water bodies. These conditions can cause the above-mentioned “dead zones” — hypoxic (low-oxygen) areas in large water bodies that cannot support most marine life in lower-level water. Sometimes, toxic subspecies of algae appear and present health risks (including liver and brain diseases).

In addition, the fertilizers that spur this growth can contaminate groundwater, including those aquifers used as sources of drinking water. A 2013 study found that synthetic nitrogen from fertilizers (as nitrates) leaches from soil toward groundwater over the course of decades, meaning that the agricultural and land management activities of as long as 50 years ago may still be affecting water bodies. Nitrate is a common contaminant of drinking water in agricultural areas where nitrogen fertilizers are used. Another “bonus” is that intensive use of synthetic fertilizers may increase the nitrate levels found in certain vegetables, such as lettuce and root crops. Research has indicated that long-term dietary exposure to nitrates may increase risk of thyroid disease (because nitrate competes with the uptake of iodide by the thyroid gland, potentially affecting thyroid function).

To combat algal blooms and their harmful impacts, Beyond Pesticides recommends advocating for organic agriculture, purchasing organics to leverage demand in the marketplace (and thus, protect human and environmental health), and encouraging organic land management at the local level (city, town, and/or county). For assistance with such advocacy in your community, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] or 1.202.543.5450.

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

Source: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article214620390.html

Experimental, genetically engineered, glyphosate tolerant bentgrass escaped into the wild.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 19, 2018) A variety of bentgrass, genetically engineered by Scotts Miracle-Gro and Monsanto to tolerate the glyphosate herbicide Roundup, escaped from an experimental field planting in Eastern Oregon 15 years ago, and continues to plague area farmers. Bentgrass is prized by those who maintain golf course greens because of its fine texture and habit of spreading in even, horizontal mats. But the genetically engineered (GE) version has become a giant annoyance for farmers and other growers who battle its spread through the irrigation systems of Malheur County in eastern Oregon. The escape of this GE version of Agrostis stolonifera is especially alarming in Oregon, the grass seed capital of the world.

The GE grass showed up after crossing the Snake River from where it had been planted in seed fields in Idaho, despite the fact that the USDA had not approved its release into the seed market. By 2010, farmers and others found it spreading in mats across most of the irrigation canals and ditches that snake across Malheur County. It is now found in Jefferson County, Oregon, and Canyon County, Idaho, as well. The growth habit of the perennial grass is what greenskeepers love, but its persistent presence in irrigation networks results in slowed water flow as the plant roots collect sediment, creating a constant trial for farmers who depend on irrigation. They use herbicides and mechanical removal to try to get rid of it, but efforts cost time and money, and are only partly successful.

This GE bentgrass episode is but one example of the concerns that many scientists, environmentalists, and advocates have not only for the use of GE organisms in agriculture, but also, for the cascading risks it introduces. Most notable among those is increased use of pesticides and the related development of resistant “superweeds,” akin to the issue of rising antibiotic-resistance among bacteria. The biotechnology enthusiasm in the 1990s and 2000s for what genetic engineering could do in agriculture — never mind for corporate profits — included claims that, for example, plants engineered to be resistant to certain pesticides or herbicides would mean that growers would need to use far less of the toxic stuff on crops.

In fact, a large-scale study published in 2016 showed that, although pesticide use on GE crops dropped in the very short term, as resistance quickly developed among target weed species, growers actually accelerated their herbicide use and added additional compounds, such as dicamba and 2,4-D, in an effort to control the “super weeds.” Chuck Benbrook, PhD (author of a previous study on pesticide use on GM crops, covered in 2012 by Beyond Pesticides), noted, ““When measured by acre-treatments (number of distinct, single applications of any pesticide), the trends look very ominous for farmers and the environment.”

The resistance problem has real potential to impact the economics of agriculture, as well. Beyond Pesticides noted in 2012, “Glyphosate-tolerant weeds were practically unknown before the introduction of Roundup-tolerant crops in 1996. But heavy reliance on the herbicide Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate, has placed weed populations under progressively intense and unprecedented selection pressure, triggering a perfect storm for the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds. In general, in regions of the U.S. where Roundup-tolerant crops dominate, there are now evolved glyphosate-resistant populations of economically damaging weed species.”

In addition, genes from the ultra-light pollen of bentgrass can travel on wind currents. As far back as 2005, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) expressed concern that the GE grass could not only spread herbicide resistance, but also, infect and fundamentally alter rare or native species with unfamiliar genes. Because varieties of bentgrass grow naturally across the North American continent, this GE species might easily spread and crossbreed with other grass species and/or exhibit glyphosate resistance.

These concerns are very real for Oregon’s billion-dollar grass seed industry, located largely in the Willamette Valley in the western part of the state. Though the problem has not yet migrated from eastern and central Oregon to that fecund valley, some growers think it may be only a matter of time. Were that to happen, it could both destroy the export grass seed market — because many overseas buyers will not purchase GE commodities or products — and make it monumentally challenging for growers to control the GE or hybrid plant contamination.

This points to one of the fundamental problems with GE plant organisms: once introduced into the environment, they can easily spiral out of control and contaminate other species with their genes and/or other features, such as Roundup resistance. Critics note that the government, through its various agencies (Environmental Protection Agency, USDA, et al.) continues to fail to protect both the general environment, and agriculture, specifically. Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, said, “Neither the USDA nor any government agency must weigh the full social, economic and ecological impacts of GE products. . . . There’s really no place that’s looking at this broadly from a risk-benefit perspective.”

Malheur County locals do not think the GE bentgrass can be eradicated, and some fear that it may contaminate non-GMO crops and potentially invade natural areas. Jerry Erstrom, a retired Bureau of Land Management (BLM) natural resource specialist who chairs the Malheur County Weed Advisory Board, has lived his whole life in the county. When he led BLM’s regional weed program, his unofficial moniker was “Weed Czar.” His comment on bentgrass: “It just scares the bejeezus out of me.” He adds, “There are only one or two herbicides labeled to be used upon it. . . . The caveat is they can only be used in dry areas. Anything on a shoreline, in wetlands or along riparian, there’s nothing that can remove it. The only way is by hand or shovel.”

Scotts and Monsanto started work on the grass in the 1990s, looking to exploit a specific commercial niche: maintaining golf course greens. With a Roundup-resistant, GE version of the grass, greenskeepers would be able to plant the bentgrass, and use Roundup on it to beat back other grasses and weeds, leaving the bentgrass to thrive. After initial field trials, the companies petitioned the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to deregulate — release from regulatory oversight — the new grass. Field trials continued, including one just north of Bend, in central Oregon and less than 100 miles from the Willamette Valley. A couple of windstorms in 2003 carried pollen far out of the “controlled” area of the field trial, and Roundup resistant pollen fertilized non-GMO bentgrass plants as far away as 13 miles. With the horse out of the barn, USFS wrote, “The deregulation of this organism has the potential to adversely impact all 175 national forests and grasslands.” In 2007, Scotts paid a half-million-dollar fine for losing control of the organism, but that did little to rein in what had been loosed.

When landowners in Malheur County started noticing that Roundup no longer took down what they thought was regular bentgrass in their irrigation canals and ditches, they sought the plants’ genetic identity and discovered that the stuff filling their waterways was, indeed, the Roundup-resistant bentgrass. They discovered it could be kept down, more or less, during fall and spring, but in summer, the ditches swelled with new growth and pollen-laden flowers. And the only permitted use near water was . . . wait for it . . . Roundup.

Scotts has made some efforts to deal with the problem of its GE “escapee,” and says it has significantly reduced the territory of the grass’s proliferation. Yet the company has been allowed to escape ultimate responsibility by a number of USDA (United States Dairy Association) decisions in recent years that absolve Scotts and Monsanto from the responsibility to fund clean-up efforts (to the tune of $250,000 annually) in exchange for an agreement not to commercialize GE bentgrass. This, according to Mr. Erstrom, leaves the burden of annual routing of the plant to county and state governments, and to local growers.

Scotts and Monsanto abandoned plans to commercialize the grass, but quietly reapplied for deregulation. Oddly, USDA proposed this: “If the company promised not to sell the grass for the life of the patent and continued control efforts for three more years, APHIS would absolve Scotts of responsibility for controlling the plants. The company would have to maintain an educational website and provide technical support for managing the grass until 2023, including if it cropped up in a new location or in someone’s harvest. But it would not have to pay for cleanup.” An APHIS spokesperson characterized the offer as a way to protect farmers and get the company’s cooperation, given that under current regulations, APHIS would likely have to approve the deregulation because it is constrained to withhold deregulation only “if it concluded that the product itself was a pest, or if it could somehow boost pests.”

Indeed, very few plants have ever met this criterion; as a result, APHIS has not denied any of the 127 deregulation petitions it has received. The problem is growing; as Oregon Live reports, “Roughly 60 GE organisms now fall outside the agency’s authority because they weren’t made with a plant pest, and all can be released into the environment without review. A soybean has already been commercialized, and an anti-browning button mushroom has drawn media attention. But the list also includes four grasses developed by Scotts.”

Carol Mallory-Smith, PhD, a professor of weed science at Oregon State University, worries that something more harmful than bentgrass may get through this regulatory hole: “While Roundup resistance is a pain for growers and land managers, it’s a relatively benign trait in the wild; it offers a competitive edge only when plants get sprayed with herbicide. But what about a potentially weedy plant that’s been modified to tolerate drought or salt or heat? That would give the species a major advantage, she says. ‘All of a sudden, you are looking at something that could have very different environmental impacts.’” In January 2017, the USDA abdicated control over GE bentgrass.

Eastern Oregon landowners may be glad to hear that Scotts has come up with yet another herbicide, Reckon, that may control the GE bentgrass more effectively during summers. But every GE or pesticide-based “fix” proposed by industry seems to come with a litany of new risks and problems. That, of course, underscores Beyond Pesticides’ fundamental argument: use of pesticides is not only toxic to human and animal health, and to the environment generally, but also, is a profoundly unsustainable approach to plant or animal “pests” because it generates a Pandora’s box of other problems. See Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on genetic engineering.

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

Source: https://www.oregonlive.com/expo/news/erry-2018/07/75efd8154b4980/escaped_gmo_crop_creates_rift.html#incart_river_index

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2018) Empire State Consumer Project (ESCP), a regional group in Upstate New York, has published its 2018 Government Pesticide Survey, highlighting the use of hazardous landscape pesticides by local governments in the area. The group’s work shines a light on communities using too many hazardous chemicals, but also calls attention to towns and villages using pesticide-free practices. By making use of New York State’s open record laws, ESCP provides a good model for other local and regional groups to follow.

ESCP surveyed over 30 different towns and villages in Monroe County, NY through the use of a public records request the group provided a copy of at the end of its report. The majority of towns did apply toxic pesticides, with glyphosate being the most widely used. While many towns only used one or two different products, some communities, like the town of Pittsford and the village of Spencerport, used 17 and 18 different pesticide products, respectively. However, five towns (Brighton, East Rochester, Gates, Ogden, and Parma), and three villages (Brockport, Pittsford, and Scottsville) indicated they used no pesticides at all to manage their public spaces.

“Town, village and county parks, office complexes, and roadways are a few of the properties that seek to ‘beautify’ their grounds while exposing the public to toxic chemicals and polluting the environment. Some communities report using no pesticides – If these communities can do it, they all can,” said Judy Braiman, president of ESCP.

While New York State has passed legislation that restricts hazardous pesticide use on school grounds, allowing only products considered minimum risk by EPA, local governments have been slow to follow in the state’s lead. According to Beyond Pesticides’ Map of U.S. Pesticide Reform Policies only a limited number of communities have enshrined pesticide-free practices into law. ESCP is hoping that this report will encourage communities using multiple pesticides to look towards alternatives in order to protect human health and their unique local environment. Likewise, those that do not use pesticide currently are encouraged to codify their practices through the passage of a local law.

Ms. Braiman adds, “Consumers, employees, and neighboring residents have no say about the pesticides they are exposed to while visiting or living near these locations. Recent applications, even when posted with signs, cannot be avoided altogether. Pesticide drift caused by wind and runoff from rain extends the reach of the toxics well beyond their intended targets. Pesticide runoff pollutes our waterways, including local lakes and bays we all use for recreation and many municipalities use as their source of drinking water.”

Unfortunately, New York localities are preempted from passing any policy that is stricter than state law. This stops the development of laws that apply to private property, meaning that there is little recourse for residents to stop neighbors from using toxic, drift-prone pesticides or contracting with services like TruGreen.

Beyond Pesticides encourages local advocacy groups to take a cue from ESCP and consider the value of using open records laws in determining where to focus your campaign.  You may find, as ESCP did, that some communities in your area are indeed practices safe land care, and their approach can be held up as a model for other local governments to follow.

Commit to working towards a pesticide-free community by signing the pledge today.  For additional resources to jump-start your campaign, see Beyond Pesticides’ Tools for Change webpage, or the document Resources for a Pesticide Free Community.

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

Source: Empire State Consumer Project Report, PR

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2018) Last week, closing arguments were made in the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) refusal to ban chlorpyrifos, the pesticide science links to a host of neurological impairments in children. A coalition of labor and health organizations represented by Earthjustice asked a panel of three judges to overturn former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s decision not to ban chlorpyrifos.

In June 2017, a dozen health, labor, and civil rights organizations represented by Earthjustice filed an administrative appeal to EPA urging the federal government to ban chlorpyrifos. The attorneys general of New York, California, Washington, Massachusetts, Maine, Maryland and Vermont also filed their own appeal calling for a ban. The groups also filed a court case that asked the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco to decide the issues presented in the administrative appeal because of the likelihood of a delayed resolution by the EPA. This was the last hearing where the health and labor groups, as well as states, were able to present their arguments to the court of appeals and answer the judges’ questions. The New York Attorney General’s office also presented arguments on behalf of seven states, which intervened in the case and are also calling for a ban on chlorpyrifos. After the argument, the judges will issue a written ruling, which could be within weeks or months.

In March 2017, then Administrator Pruitt rejected the conclusions of EPA scientists, and independent scientific literature, and reversed a tentative decision from 2015 to revoke food residue tolerances of chlorpyrifos due to the chemical’s neurotoxic impacts. This would have effectively banned chlorpyrifos from agriculture. This decision stemmed from a petition and lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) ten years ago, calling for EPA to revoke all chlorpyrifos tolerances and cancel all registrations. Pruitt’s decision came weeks after he met with the head of Dow Chemical, which sells chlorpyrifos under the name of Lorsban.

Decades of scientific data show that chlorpyrifos damages fetal brains and produces cognitive and behavioral dysfunctions, particularly in utero and in children. Even at low levels of exposure chlorpyrifos can impact the developing fetus in pregnant women resulting in impaired learning, change in brain functions, and alter thyroid levels of children into adulthood.

Epidemiological data also points to subpopulations that are disproportionately affected by chlorpyrifos exposures. Low-income African-American and Latino families, including farmworker families, continue to suffer the most, and this disproportionate impact creates an environmental justice issue that the agency must not continue to ignore. A 2016 study found lower IQ in children born to mothers who, during their pregnancy, were living in close proximity to chemical-intensive agricultural lands where OPs were used. A 2015 study found that a decrease in lung function in children was linked to exposure to organophosphates early in life. Another 2015 study found that prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos is linked to tremors in children. Although organophosphate use was on the decline in the U.S., EPA has allowed the continued registration of many of these products.

Earthjustice’s appeal was filed on behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens, United Farm Workers, Farmworker Association of Florida, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Farmworker Justice, GreenLatinos, National Hispanic Medical Association, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, Learning Disability Association of America, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Pesticide Action Network North America, and Natural Resources Defense Council.

In light of gross federal inaction on this highly neurotoxic pesticide, the state of Hawaii became the first in the nation to take a stand and ban chlorpyrifos. Governor David Ige signed SB3095 into law, in light of the unanimous support it received from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. The statewide prohibition of chlorpyrifos will take effect beginning in January 2019. This legislative action marks the first time that any state in the country has passed an outright ban on the highly toxic pesticide. Hawaii’s law contains a caveat that allows the state’s Department of Agriculture (DOA) to grant special permits for companies that argue that they need more time to phase-out chlorpyrifos, but that exemption will end at the close of 2022. Lawmakers in New Jersey and Maryland have recently tried unsuccessfully to pass similar bans.

U.S. Senators Tom Udall (D-NM) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have introduced a bill that would ban the use of the insecticide, chlorpyrifos. The Protect Children, Farmers and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act, S. 1624, comes one week after an appeals court refused to require EPA to make a decision over whether to ban the chemical.

Take Action: To oppose the continued allowance of chlorpyrifos and other noxious pesticides in your community, write or call your US Congressional Representative. Urge them to support the Protect Children, Farmers, and Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act of 2017 to safeguard schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces from the unnecessary exposure to this neurotoxin. Learn more about the fate, effects, and impacts of pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. Also, consult Beyond Pesticides’ factsheet Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix, which cites peer-reviewed scientific literature on the health effects of pesticides.

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

Source: Earthjustice Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2018)  Legislative Sneak Attacks Continue. Yet another bill has been introduced in Congress to remove accountability from Monsanto/Bayer for its glyphosate herbicide Roundup.™ The so-called “Accurate Labels Act” (S.3019/H.R.6022) would repeal most, if not all, existing labeling and information disclosure laws adopted by state or local governments, including California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65), which has been responsible for the removal of hundreds of dangerous toxic chemicals, including lead, cadmium, and mercury, from commercial and consumer products nationwide. California listed Roundup as a probable carcinogen in 2015, requiring a label warning in the state, and California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal upheld the decision in April of this year, rejecting Monsanto’s challenge to the listing.

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to oppose S.3019/H.R.6022.

California will not only move ahead with warning labels on products that contain glyphosate, but also, prohibit discharge of the pesticide into public waterways. Proposition 65 requires notification, primarily through labeling, of all chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, and prohibits their discharge into the state’s drinking waters.

As with previous sneak attacks, Monsanto’s fingerprints — if not its name – are all over this bill. Other legislation that would help remove Monsanto/Bayer accountability for glyphosate is contained in appropriations for the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Farm Bill. The House appropriations bill for ATSDR includes “report language” that would restrict independent evaluation of pesticide hazards by ATSDR. Monsanto pushed to stop ATSDR from researching the cancer-causing properties of its glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup.

In April, the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture moved H.R.2 (the Farm Bill) out of committee with a provision that prohibits local governments from restricting pesticide use on private property within their jurisdictions. The full House passed the bill in June. Existing local laws in two states, Maine and Maryland, will be overturned with final passage of this law. In those 43 states that forbid local pesticide laws by state law, future reconsideration of this state prohibition — a squelching of local authority pushed by the chemical and pest management industry — will be foreclosed.

The fight to defend the authority of local governments to protect people and the environment has been ongoing for decades, reaching the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Pub. Intervenor v. Mortier, which found in favor of localities’ authority, the pesticide lobby immediately formed the “Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy,” and developed boilerplate legislative language that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances on the use of pesticides on private property. The Coalition’s lobbyists descended on states across the country, seeking and in most cases passing, preemption legislation whose text was often identical to the Coalition’s. Since the passage of those state laws, there have been numerous efforts to preempt local authority in states that do not prohibit local action on pesticides. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-backed group, appeared to be behind a failed effort over the last two years to preempt local authority in the Maine state legislature.

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to oppose S.3019/H.R.6022.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representatives:

Please oppose S.3019/H.R.6022, deceptively called the “Accurate Labels Act,” would block enforcement of most state and local right-to-know laws, and even some federal programs. It is an attack on transparency and the rights of state governments. These important laws require disclosure of ingredients in everyday consumer products that are linked to potential health risks, including cancer, birth defects, developmental harm to children and other diseases. The bill is alarming and radical legislation that would repeal most, if not all, existing labeling and information disclosure laws adopted by state or local governments.

In addition, the bill would effectively prevent the future adoption of any meaningful and health-protective right-to-know laws at the state or local level for nearly all consumer products and commodities and potentially eliminate current and future federal agency-initiated information, ingredient disclosure and right-to-know requirements. the bill would likely eliminate existing state and local laws including:

* California’s landmark law, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65) which has been responsible for the removal of hundreds of dangerous toxic chemicals including lead, cadmium, and mercury from commercial and consumer products nationwide and requires a warning on some pesticides.
* Requirements to disclose when household furniture contains toxic flame retardant chemicals (which are not needed for fire safety), many of which are associated with learning disabilities, cancer, reproductive harm, and hormone disruption and are known to be released from furniture into indoor air and dust.
* Eleven state laws requiring disclosure of mercury, a potent brain damaging chemical, in products and the need for its proper disposal as a hazardous waste.
* Requirements for full household cleaning product ingredient disclosure.
* Requirements to report on the use of chemicals of high concern in consumer (children’s) products.

I urge you to support local and state right-to-know laws that have protected consumers across the country from dangerous chemicals in thousands of products, while incentivizing safer products in the marketplace.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 13, 2018) Earlier this year, a study published in the Journal of Medical Entomology by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicated that a known carcinogen, the synthetic pyrethroid permethrin, when applied to clothing may function as a tick deterrent. The study has led to many misleading and potentially dangerous headlines, such as National Public Radio’s story “To Repel Ticks, Try Spraying Your Clothes With A Pesticide That Mimics Mums.” These articles encourage readers to use permethrin treated clothing, and downplay the risks associated with its use. Moreover, as noted by Consumer Reports, the CDC study in question does not go as far as recommending that individuals use permethrin treated clothing.

The study placed ticks of different species and life stages on cloth cut from permethrin treated clothing. Researchers found that the majority of ticks had difficulty moving after exposure to the fabric. However, this effect did vary with life stages, as adult ticks were generally able handle pesticide exposure longer than nymph stage ticks. As James Dickerson, PhD, chief scientific officer of Consumer Reports notes, “The CDC’s study did not test any items while they were being worn, so it doesn’t show conclusively how well the clothes might keep ticks from biting you.” When speaking with Consumer Reports, study coauthor Lars Eisen, PhD, with CDC indicated that a larger study that includes individuals actually wearing the treated clothing is needed to indicate whether the practice is indeed effective. “We do not have that study yet,” Dr. Eisen told Consumer Reports.

NPR’s coverage of the study led it to interview an individual who recommended using both permethrin and the repellent DEET to address tick issues as “very effective,” with NPR indicating that the study backs up these claims. However, a 2001 study investigating the synergistic effects of DEET and permethrin due to its potential link to Gulf War Syndrome, reported by many veterans, found that this combination “decreased [blood brain barrier] BBB permeability in certain brain regions, and impaired sensorimotor performance.”

A U.S. Army funded study from 2011 also linked pesticide exposure and synergy to Gulf War Syndrome symptoms, singling out DEET and permethrin, among other chemicals. Despite these risks, NPR simply quoted EPA assertions that individuals were unlikely to experience “significant immediate or long-term hazard from permethrin,” but did not address synergy risks between DEET and permethrin, let alone the deficiencies in EPA’s pesticide registration system.

Beyond Pesticides strongly discourages the use of any pesticide treated clothing. In addition to being classified a likely carcinogen by EPA, permethrin has been associated with endocrine disruption, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, and damage to organs like the kidney and liver. It’s been linked to behavioral problems in children, infant leukemia, and adverse respiratory effects such as wheezing.

In humans, symptoms of acute exposure to DEET include headache, exhaustion and mental confusion, together with blurred vision, salivation, chest tightness, muscle twitching and abdominal cramps. Researchers have noted significant concerns related to the use of DEET, including nervous system disorders, adverse developmental effects, and neurotoxicity in children. DEET poses risks to the human nervous system, according to a 2009 study. Another  study associated pregnant women’s exposure to insect repellents, such as DEET, during their first trimester to an 81% increased chance of male children developing “hypospadias,” a condition where the urinary opening is at the bottom rather that the tip of the penis.

Many may also think that spraying one’s lawn with insecticides to kill ticks are a good way to address their presence around your yard. However, a study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in 2016 found that while these sprays may in fact kill ticks, residents that had their yard’s sprayed reported the same number of ticks and same rate of tickborne illness as those that did not. The authors concluded tick barrier sprays, “do not significantly reduce the household risk of tick exposure or incidence of tick-borne disease.”

The best way to address ticks is through personal protective measures and judicious use of least-toxic repellents such as Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus, Picaridin, and IRC. If one ignores DEET from their search, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a helpful website to find a brand of tick repellent that is effective. The website indicates the product name, length of effectiveness, active ingredient, and company name. Rather than mowed lawns, ticks are likely to hide in tall grass, shrubs, and overgrowth vegetation, and it follows that eliminating these habitats around one’s home can help suppress ticks where they’re likely to latch on. Since white-footed mice are critical vectors for tick-borne diseases like lyme, methods to reduce rodent populations can also address lyme. But if you’re going into the woods or other areas with known high tick populations, the most effective method currently is to wear appropriate clothing (light colored that covers one’s whole body), a hat, and consider tucking one’s pant’s into your socks. Most important is to conduct regular tick checks alongside a friend, as it’s critically important to detatch a tick from one’s skin as soon as possible after the bite to reduce the chance of disease transfer.  If you have an outdoor pet, don’t forget to check them as well (consider a flea/tick comb and remember areas like behind the ears and in between toes).

While CDC continues to study the best methods to manage ticks, personal protection and diligence remain the best deterrents to tick-borne disease, not the use of chemicals that pose new risks to one’s health. For more information on how to manage ticks safely, see Beyond Pesticides ManageSafe webpage.

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

Source: Consumer Reports, NPR, Journal of Medical Entomology

(Beyond Pesticides, July 12, 2018) Neonicotinoid insecticides have become notorious for their impacts to insect pollinators like bees and butterflies, but research finding the presence of these chemicals in wild turkeys is raising new concerns about the ubiquitous nature of these chemicals once released into the environment. Published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research by a team from the University of Guelph (UG), this new study highlights the broader effects of neonicotinoids on wildlife, and underlines calls to restrict the use of these products in favor of a more sustainable pest management approach.

Looking at roughly 40 wild turkeys in southern Ontario, researchers found 10 that contained pesticide residue in their livers. Claire Jardine, PhD, pathobiology professor and study co-author notes that wild turkeys in agricultural regions are more likely to be contaminated. “Wild turkeys supplement their diet with seeds from farm fields,” she indicated in a press release.

The agrichemical industry coats a majority of corn and soybean seeds with neonicotinoids prior to planting. Because of their systemic nature, neonicotinoids are incorporated the seedlings as they grow, with the promise by the industry that this will alleviate pest pressure. However, a significant body of research, including EPA studies, have found that neonicotinoid seed treatments provide little to no benefit to farmers. An assessment published earlier this year by an international team of scientists found that an alternative insurance model could easily replace the need for farmers to purchase expensive neonicotinoid-coated seeds.

“A number of member hunters throughout southern Ontario had seen wild turkeys in the fields eating these seeds,” said another study co-author Amanda MacDonald, PhD. “In certain areas, they noticed a lack of young birds and wanted to know if neonicotinoids had anything to do with it.” As she noted, “There has been growing concern among natural resource managers, conservationists and hunters about whether the use of neonics may be linked to poor reproductive output of wild turkeys.”

Earlier research investigating how neonicotinoids affect birds had found that a single kernel of neonicotinoid-coated corn was enough to kill a songbird. Insecticides like neonicotinoids also been found to interfere with migration patterns, building evidence that the decline of many grassland birds is linked to the widespread use of pesticides on farmland. Although researchers have only tested for the presense of neonicotinoid contamination, the number of detections and reports from those on the ground paint a concerning picture. “We need to continue to assess levels of neonics in a variety of wildlife, especially those that may feed off the ground or consume plants and insects and therefore might be more likely to come into contact with them,” said another study coauthor, Nicole Nemeth, PhD.

Beyond Pesticides continues to work to raise awareness about the dangers and hazards these chemicals pose to wildlife and the wider environment. For more information about neonicotinoid coated seeds and what you can do in your community to protect pollinators and other species impacted by neonicotinoids, see the short video, “Seeds that Poison.” We can manage land to produce food and encourage wild game without the use of toxic pesticides by moving to organic land management practices. These methods forgo pesticide use in favor of cultural practices that improve soil health and enhance natural ecosystem processes. For more information on organic land management see the recent article in Pesticides and You titled “Thinking Holistically When Making Land Management Decisions.”

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

Source: Environmental Science and Pollution Research, EurekAlert

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2018) Ecologically-based farming systems contain far fewer pests and generate much higher profits than their conventional, chemical-based counterparts according to research published in the journal PeerJ earlier this year by scientists at South Dakota State University and the Ecdysis Foundation. The study supports calls to reshape the future of agriculture, as ‘regenerative’ farms, which avoid tillage and bare soil, integrate livestock, and foster on-farm diversity. These farms are found to represent an economically viable alternative to overly simplified, pesticide and fertilizer-dependent cropping systems. Given the study’s focus on corn cropping systems, such a shift is possible for thousands of farmers throughout the United States.

Researchers looked at roughly 75 fields on 18 farms, measuring the organic matter in the soil, insect pest populations, corn yield as well as profit. Farms using pesticide treatments, which in corn fields is represented primarily by the use of neonicotinoid-coated seeds, had 10x higher pest levels than regenerative farms. As noted in the study, pest populations are a function of the biodiversity within the crop field. Biodiveristy increased on regenerative farms not only because farmers sprayed fewer pesticides, but because they also allowed more plants to grow in between rows. More plants lead to higher numbers of predatory insects and increased competition for pests, while conventional farms mistakenly attempt to simplify the ecosystem by replacing this diversity with pesticides. Lower levels of biodiversity, however, leads to fewer predators, less competition for crop pests like aphids, and the rapid development of pesticide resistance which facilitates pest outbreaks.

While many in the agrichemical industry may point to the fact that regenerative farms produced 29% less corn than conventional farms, profit, the most important aspect of any business, was 78% higher from regenerative farms. Researchers linked this to a number of factors. First, conventional farms spent a significant amount of their money (32%) on outside inputs, with the most expensive costs being fertilizer and seed, which often comes at a premium price from agrichemical companies because it is either genetically engineered or coated in neonicotinoid insecticides.  Second, while regenerative farms spent comparable less on seed and fertilizer (12%), they also benefited by receiving an organic premium, selling their corn directly to consumers, or extracting additional value out of their field, such as by grazing it with livestock. Ultimately, scientists found that on-farm profit correlated most closely not with yields, but with the amount of organic matter in the soil of the field.

This research has important implications for farmers. ‘Following the money’ when it comes to food production indicates that there should be less of a focus on yield, and more of a focus on enhancing soil biology and biodiversity on farms. In a report published last year by the United Nations, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Hilal Elver, PhD, confirmed that industry arguments about the need for conventional pesticides to increase food production are not accurate.  “It is a myth,” said Dr. Elver. “Using more pesticides has nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), we are able to feed nine billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.” In 2016, the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems released a report “From Uniformity to Diversity,” calling for an end to the industrial agricultural model. The report notes, “The mismatch between the potential of agroecology to improve food systems outcomes, and its potential to generate profit for agribusinesses, may explain why it has been so slow to make its way onto the global political agenda.”

As a 2014 study published by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley found, organic agriculture can and must be the method used to feed the world in the future. The organic industry is the food production system most prepared to foster the transition needed to see this come to fruition, and Beyond Pesticides is doing all it can to ensure it continues to grow while retaining and building consumer trust in the organic label. The success of organic in the U.S. has been driven by ecologically-based farms that focus on fostering biodiversity, limiting external inputs, improving soil health, sequestering carbon, and using integrated holistic approaches to managing pests, weeds, and disease. To learn more about why organic is the right choice, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture program page. And for more information on the dangers neonicotinoid coated seeds pose to pollinators and our environment, see and share Beyond Pesticides’ new video, “Seeds that Poison.”

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.

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

Source: PeerJ

(Beyond Pesticides, July 10, 2018) Scott Pruitt’s resignation as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took effect Monday under a cloud of ethics investigations and alleged collusion with industry to systematically undermine, dismantle, and reverse critical protections for air, water, and workers. Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler will take the helm as Acting Administrator after serving as Deputy Administrator, a position that required Senate confirmation. Mr. Wheeler, a lawyer who worked  in the toxics office at EPA under Presidents George H.W. Bush ad Bill Clinton, as an aide to U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) – a denier of climate change – and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), and as a lobbyist for the coal and chemical industry, told the Washington Post: “[I] would say that the agenda for the agency was set out by President Trump. And Administrator Pruitt has been working to implement that. I will try to work to implement the president’s agenda as well. I don’t think the overall agenda is going to change that much, because we’re implementing what the president has laid out for the agency. He made several campaign promises that we are working to fulfill here.”

Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), chair of EPW, in a statement, said: “Under President Trump, the EPA has returned to its original mission of protecting America’s air, water, and land. During Administrator Pruitt’s tenure, the agency has rolled back punishing regulations that were hurting American workers and stifling our economy. It has become increasingly challenging for the EPA to carry out its mission with the administrator under investigation. President Trump made the right decision to accept his resignation.” Meanwhile, some Democrats went on the attack. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted, “Andrew Wheeler may not have the same stink of blatant corruption as EPA Scott Pruitt, but he’s just as dirty. The EPA’s new Acting Director is a former coal lobbyist who will work to poison the agency and the environment he’s supposed to protect from the inside.”

During Mr. Wheeler’s confirmation for the Deputy Administrator position, the Sierra Club issued a critical press release: “Wheeler brings his own troubling record of serving as a paid lobbyist for corporate polluters; the fact he would enter the administration in direct violation of Trump’s own “ethics” Executive Order; a past history of paid industry sponsored junkets; and a campaign finance scandal under which he raised funds for committee members who voted on him months after he was already the presumptive nominee.” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune released the following statement: “Confirming coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler to help lead the agency that is supposed to hold corporate polluters accountable is a move straight from the Washington, D.C. swamp. Wheeler’s confirmation further enables the culture of corruption in which Scott Pruitt attacks clean air and water standards on behalf of the corporate polluters who’ve been providing him favors and giving him marching orders. The Senate should be demanding more scrutiny of Wheeler’s own problematic record, not rushing his confirmation so that he can stand by Pruitt’s side. Wheeler is ethically compromised. In addition to spending a decade getting paid to push corporate polluter interests in Washington, Wheeler has made clear he will do everything in his power to roll back essential safeguards that protect our air, water, and families from harmful toxins like mercury, arsenic, lead, and other pollution.”

After months of pressure and an embarrassing encounter at an eatery in DC, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has resigned. Pruitt’s resignation is on the heels of heavily critiqued spending, ethics, and policy decisions. One of his first orders (and one of his most egregious) in office was to reverse EPA’s proposed decision to ban the nerve toxin, chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that decades of science as shown to be toxic to children’s brains and harmful to workers. At a hearing last year, U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) pressed Mr. Pruitt to name a peer-reviewed study that indicates that chlorpyrifos is safe. Mr. Pruitt answered by saying that he had relied on ‘interagency dialogue’ with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) before denying the petition to ban the chemical. Regarding chlorpyrifos’ safety, Mr. Pruitt stated that his decision was founded on “meaningful data and meaningful science.” However, when EPA was followed up with to provide details on this science, Mr. Pruitt’s office replied with quotes from trade groups and USDA, but failed to provide any scientific studies on the chemical’s safety.

Mr. Pruitt‘s “changes” to the agency, frequently favored industry interests over science-based protection of the environment and public health. EPA’s moves to reduce enforcement, roll back protective regulations, and install industry-friendly personnel have been covered extensively by Beyond Pesticides; examples include: “Where Has All the EPA Enforcement Gone,” “The Threat to Scientific Integrity at EPA,” and regular posts in its Daily News Blog.

Mr. Pruitt called his approach to EPA’s function “Back to Basics,” which he said included a refocus on EPA’s “intended mission, a return of power to the states, and creation of an environment where jobs can grow.” The agency website sets out the “three Es” of the Back-to-Basics agenda: Environment: protecting the environment; Economy: sensible regulations that allow economic growth; and Engagement: engaging with state and local partners. The new agenda was announced in April 2017 at a coal mine in Sycamore, Pennsylvania — a telling gesture that betrayed Pruitt’s actual allegiances: to the extractive, chemical, industrial, and transportation interests that are the chief sources of environmental degradation in the U.S. In addition, Mr. Pruitt reassigned or demoted EPA employees who question him; failed to investigate civil rights complaints; delayed rules designed to protect farmworker children; eliminated from EPA advisory boards scientists who have received EPA grants; and attempted to slash EPA’s staff in half.

But now with Mr. Pruitt gone, Mr. Wheeler, will step in as acting Administrator. He was confirmed as Deputy Administrator by the Senate in April by a vote of 53-45, despite being one of 30 federal employees who allegedly violated Mr. Trump’s executive order barring former lobbyists from working in positions requiring them to manage issues they lobbied in the preceding two years. A former energy lobbyist, Mr. Wheeler’s biggest client included Murray Energy Corporation, which is considered to be the largest coal mining company in the U.S. that fought the Obama administration’s attempts to reduce carbon emissions and strengthen environmental and public health laws. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Mr. Wheeler also served as a vice president of a 300-strong federation of coal interests in the capital called the Washington Coal Club and “made time to lobby the U.S. Department of the Interior to open portions of the Bears Ears National Monument to uranium mining.” His other clients included Energy Fuels Resources Inc., Xcel Energy and Bear Head LNG Corporation.

The New York Time reports that Mr. Wheeler and the CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, Robert Murray, put together a so-called environmental regulations wish-list which detailed policies aimed at reinvigorating the coal industry — like curbing restrictions on greenhouse gases and slashing staff at the EPA.

His previous boss, Senator Inhofe is a noted climate change denier who refers to the science of climate change as “the greatest hoax” ever perpetrated on the American people. The New York Times notes that he once served at the EPA as a special assistant in the agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics for four years before he worked for Mr. Inhofe, and is a seasoned political operative who knows how to carefully traverse the system – which could mean even more wide ranging rollbacks.

Ideologically, Mr. Pruitt and Mr. Wheeler are cut from the same cloth, although it is yet to be seen whether he also shares similar lavish spending or desires for private $34,000 phone booths. EPA will continue to be led by Administrators hell-bent on destroying the environment, and under the new Acting Administrator, we can expect more assaults on the environment.

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

Source: New York Times, Vox, NRDC

(Beyond Pesticides, July 9, 2018) The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to take action to protect 23 wildlife species in the Southeast that are at risk of extinction. Citing deep concerns about unprecedented assaults on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), CBD’s letter reiterates the critical need for FWS to provide timely protection to the most critically imperiled species.

Urge FWS to provide Endangered Species Act protection for 23 species in the Southeast. Urge your U.S. Senators and Representative to support the ESA’s scientific review process and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

CBD’s letter highlights the plight of 23 freshwater animals and plants, including the southern snaketail and the sunfacing coneflower, and the failure of FWS to meet its deadlines for issuing proposals on species determined “may warrant protection.” CBD urges FWS to follow the law –to review and publish species protection proposals.

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 blossom, 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 U.S. 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. Among the attacks is a provision in the House version of 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.

With species decline increasing across the globe, it is critical that we protect those already at heightened risk. An important provision of 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.

Urge FWS to provide Endangered Species Act protection for 23 species in the Southeast. Urge your U.S. Senators and Representative to support the ESA’s scientific review process and protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

Letter to FWS:

I am writing in support of the June 8, 2018 letter from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) urging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to take action to protect 23 wildlife species in the Southeast that are at risk of extinction. I reiterate the critical need stated by CBD for FWS to provide timely protection to the most critically imperiled species.

CBD’s review of 61 species in a petition submitted in 2010 found that –based on information provided by FWS, current information on the species from scientists, published literature, Freedom of Information Act materials, and conservation organizations— 23 of the species are at risk of extinction.

I support CBD’s analysis and urge FWS to complete listing for the 23 species listed in the letter.

Thank you for your consideration of this letter.

Letter to Congressional Senators and Representatives:

A declining budget and opposition from the Trump administration are stalling critical protections for endangered species. 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 blossom, and turgid blossom pearly mussels, the Florida fairy shrimp, and the South Florida rainbow snake.

Attacks on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been a regular occurrence in the 115th United States Congress. This Congress already has seen at least 63 legislative attacks seeking to strip federal protections from specific species or undercutting the ESA, among them a provision in the House version of the 2018 Farm Bill to exempt the use of pesticides from ESA review, which threatens hundreds of endangered species, and makes it legal to kill any endangered species with a pesticide at almost any time.

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.

Therefore, I request that you support adequate funding for the ESA’s scientific review process and reject legislative proposals that jeopardize FWS’s ability to carry out its responsibility to protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats.

Sincerely,

(Beyond Pesticides, July 6, 2018) Two years ago, thirteen bald eagles were found dead on a farm in Maryland. Now the investigation has revealed that these birds died after ingesting the highly toxic pesticide, carbofuran. Carbofuran, whose use has been phased out in the U.S., is so toxic to birds that one granule is all it takes to kill. Irresponsible and illegal use of pesticides is still responsible for primary and secondary poisonings of wildlife, as is the case of these bald eagles.

According to the necropsy results by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which analyzed six of the thirteen eagle carcasses, five of the carcasses were found to have undigested raccoon remains in their systems. Carbofuran was detected in the stomach and/or crop contents of all birds, as well as on the partial remains and fur of a raccoon that was found nearby.

The granular form of carbofuran has been blamed for the deaths of more than a million birds in the U.S. who mistook the granules for seed. The granules were finally banned in the early 1990s, while the liquid formulation was banned on food crops in 2009, although the painfully slow process of cancellation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began in the 1990s. In fact, the 2009 action to cancel carbofuran food uses was the culmination of a regulatory process that began in 2006 when the agency published its risk assessments for carbofuran and determined that no uses were eligible for reregistration, finding “dietary, worker, and ecological risks are unacceptable for all uses of carbofuran. All products containing carbofuran generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans and the environment and do not meet safety standards, and therefore are ineligible for reregistration.”

However, carbofuran’s maker, FMC Corporation, along with the National Corn Growers Association, National Sunflower Association, and National Potato Council petitioned the courts to reverse EPA’s decision, claiming the company had already voluntarily removed 22 products from the market, which was sufficient to allow EPA to make a finding that remaining uses/products were “safe.” The industry challenged EPA’s decision in the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2011.

Marketed under Furadan, Curator, and other names, the carbamate insecticide is toxic to humans and other mammals, causing nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and difficulty breathing. Unfortunately, as seen in Maryland, some farmers continue to use the poison illegally to kill larger predators and pests, including foxes, coyotes, and raccoons.

Killing a bald eagle is a felony crime punishable by up to two years in prison and a fine of $250,000. This iconic bird was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species (Endangered Species Act) in 2007, but it is still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Secondary poisoning of predator birds is common. Their prey – raccoons, rats, and other small mammals- are poisoned by farmers, ranchers, and others who want to keep rodents off their property. In turn, the poisoned carrion is consumed by these birds who also succumb to the poison’s effects. These pesticides are so toxic that the food material is often found undigested, mid-esophagus, in the dead predator animal, indicating how fast the lethal impacts took place. Along with birds, carbofuran has been found to harm endangered salmon and steelhead.

John LaCorte, a special agent for the Fish and Wildlife Service told The Washington Post there is an “epidemic on the Eastern Shore” of wildlife-poisoning crimes because people find it “cheaper and easier” than trapping a nuisance animal or predator or building a fence. If caught, farmers and landowners are prosecuted.

With attacks on environmental laws that protect sensitive species like the bald eagle from the impacts of pesticide poisoning, the time is now to take action. The current House version of the 2018 farm bill has provisions to exempt reviews of pesticides under the Endangered Species Act, effectively dooming hundreds of endangered species to extinction and making it more difficult to protect endangered species from pesticides; and to eliminate litigation as a remedy when pesticide decisions threaten endangered species. For more information on wildlife issues, see Beyond Pesticides’ wildlife webpage.

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

Take Action: Tell Congress to Clean Up the Farm Bill

Source: NYTimes, NPR

(Beyond Pesticides, July 5, 2018) With mosquito season in full swing throughout the U.S., land managers and abatement districts can be well served by employing biological controls in the form of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), according to research published earlier this year by scientists at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. In all but the most extreme conditions, these small fish, native throughout most of the continental United States, can provide effective control of mosquito larvae breeding in standing water. Beyond Pesticides encourages states and localities to focus primarily on larval control and public education as the best means to manage nuisance and disease-carrying mosquitoes, in contrast to adulticiding, the least effective means which allows 99.9% of a pesticide applied to contaminate the environment. At the close of Pollinator Week 2018, join us in urging Governors and state legislatures to ban the use of mosquito misters.

To test the efficacy of fathead minnows to control mosquito populations, researchers stocked the fish in 10 water catchment basins in the central U.S. Over the course of three years, larval mosquito populations were monitored in these basins, as well as in six control basins that did not receive an influx of minnows. Comparisons between the treatment and control groups found that ponds stocked with minnows decreased larval mosquito density by 114% compared to untreated ponds. By year three, minnows were able to self-sustain their population, eliminating the need to restock the ponds for continued mosquito management. This trend played out in the majority of catchment ponds, only breaking down in two smaller ponds where the water was too shallow and froze over-winter.

Fathead minnows distinguish their usefulness in mosquito control because of how inexpensive it is to stock them and create a sustaining population. “There are many potential advantages to using indigenous fish species as an alternative for larval control including lowered environmental impact, decreased costs regarding time and financial inputs, and the potential for the establishment of self-sustaining fish populations,” said study co-author Brad Fedy, PhD in a press release. “This isn’t a complete solution to the dangers of West Nile, but it should be considered as part of any plan to protect the health of vulnerable populations.”

Fathead minnows act as an excellent biological control agent because they breed and mature quickly, and are able to withstand a wide range of water qualities, including low oxygen conditions. Communities throughout the US have also experimented with other novel biological controls, such as the use of copepod crustaceans to eat larval mosquito populations.

Although larvaciding represents the best method to manage mosquito populations, as Waterloo researcher Dr. Fedy notes, “… in North America, control efforts are largely limited to larvicides, which require a repeated application and have potentially negative ecological impacts.” While larvacides like mosquito dunks usually contain Bacillus thuringensis israelensis, which does pose some limited risks to non-target species, more destructive are chemical-based larvacides like methoprene, which is highly toxic to benthic invertebrates such as lobsters and crabs.  

Unfortunately in many communities, adulticiding, not larvaciding, is the first line of defense for mosquito abatement, which results in widespread contamination with highly toxic pesticides. Communities wishing to effectively control mosquitoes without hazardous pesticides can look to Beyond Pesticides’ Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy for guidance. Apart from larvaciding, education is the other key pillar in a successful community mosquito abatement strategy. This includes educating residents about not only how to manage mosquitoes on their property, but also about the dangers of adulticides. These chemicals, such as permethrin, malathion, and naled, have been related to a range of human diseases, including cancer, autism, respiratory diseases, and neurotoxicity, as well as water contamination, and impacts to birds, aquatic organisms, and pollinators.

Without education about mosquito abatement and the risk of mosquito pesticides, many residents will opt to hire companies like Mosquito Squad or Mosquito Joe to spray the same toxic chemicals in their backyard. Or even worse, will install mosquito misting systems that release an aduticide on a timed schedule. For backyard mosquito control, it is critical to regularly dump water sources, trim overgrowth vegetation where mosquitoes hide, and use biological controls like fathead minnows or mosquito dunks where standing water cannot be drained. Use least toxic repellents when outside, sit in a screened in porch or pop-up, and/or use an oscillating fan. It’s also important to get neighbors involved in mosquito abatement efforts. For instance, you’ll never solve your backyard mosquito problem if a neighbor two houses down has a kiddy pool under their porch collecting stagnant rainwater. Use Beyond Pesticides’ mosquito doorknob hangers to spread the word.

On the closing days of Pollinator Week 2018, Beyond Pesticides is asking members and supporters to contact their Governor and state legislature and ask them to follow Connecticut’s lead in banning the use of unnecessary and dangerous mosquito misting systems, which harm important flying pollinators.

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

Source: University of Waterloo PR, PLOS One

Ben Boezinger/Cedar Falls Tiger Hi-Line
Elementary school being built near farm fields.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 3, 2018) Nearly ninety percent of public schools in Iowa are at risk of toxic pesticide drift, according to a team of investigative reporters based at the University of Northern Iowa (UNI). A study conducted by Science in the Media, a UNI project, found that 9 out of 10 schools are located within 2,000 feet of an agricultural field, a proximity at which the risk of toxic pesticide exposure increases significantly. While the results have attracted the interest of lawmakers, media reports indicate legislative champions of this issue are having a difficult time gaining support for more protective measures.

According to the data gathered, 444,669 students and teachers are within close range of agricultural pesticide use. However, the reporters found public school employees generally unaware of the dangers or of any measures they could take.  “As a teacher, I don’t know if there is anything sent out or part of any orientation to students or their parents, or anything like that,” said Louis Beck, an agriculture teacher at Union High School in La Porte City, IA to IowaWatch. “I have not been made aware of any protocol that we are supposed to have.”

Buffer zone laws and agricultural pesticide notification requirements are not widely adopted in U.S. states. However, the dangers posed by drift indicate that action is needed. A 2006 Iowa-based study published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that as proximity to agricultural fields increased, so did the likelihood that chemical pesticides would be found in one’s home. Even minute pesticide exposure can present significant risks to children’s health. Organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos, which Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt recently reversed the agency’s intent to ban, have been linked to attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders. This doesn’t just translate to difficulties for parents and teachers, but ultimately costs the economy in the form of lost brain power. A 2016 study published in The Lancet estimated that organophosphate pesticide exposure, resulted in 1.8 million lost IQ points, and 7.5 thousand intellectual disability cases annually at an estimated cost of $44.7 billion each year. Of that $44.7 billion, roughly $350 million in costs can be attributed to California, proportionately.

Despite the dangers, many Iowa legislators fell back on talking points used by the agrichemical industry. “It’s not a topic that has come up and it’s probably not a topic that I’m interested in today,” said Dan Zumbach (R-Ryan), the Iowa State Senate Ag Committee Chairman and a farm owner, in the Des Moines Register. I’m more interested in each property owner being responsible for themselves.”

However, IowaWatch interviewed State Senator David Johnson (I-Ocheyedan), who had a different take on the reasons for inaction. “Industrial agriculture has its grip on this legislature,” he said. “I’ve seen that before, and that generally stifles regulatory consideration when you have a legislature like it is now.”

Intensive farming states have been the slow to adopt buffer zone requirements around sensitive sites like schools, despite intense pressure from health and environmental justice groups. And when proposals are introduced, they are often watered down before final adoption. In California, rather than strengthen long-awaited rules to restrict pesticide use during school hours within ¼ mile of schools (to a whole mile), the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation weakened a requirement to notify schools 48 hours prior to an application. In Hawaii, after counties were preempted from imposing their own buffer zone rules, the fight moved to the state legislature. Following several years of work, state lawmakers declined to move forward with meaningful buffer zones, but instead opted to set the distance at 100 ft near public schools (however, to its credit the state legislature did become the first to ban neurotoxic chlorpyrifos).

Regarding farmers use of pesticides, Senator Rich Taylor (D- Mount Pleasant) noted in the Des Moines Register, “We can’t have them overspraying onto people living their normal life, whether it be school kids or citizens out enjoying the park. We’re going to have to look at this a lot more seriously.”  Taylor has been considering a legislative proposal on the issue.

Beyond the creation of buffer zones around pesticide use is the point that dowsing fields with hazardous agricultural pesticides must become a thing of the past. A wide variety of alternative practices and products are available to assist growers in preventing pest problems before they start. Organic agriculture, which requires farmers to improve soil health and craft an organic system plan to guide pest control decisions, represents a viable path forward for agriculture in Iowa and the rest of the nation.

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

Source: Iowa Watch/Tiger Hi-Line report, Des Moines Register

(Beyond Pesticides, July 2, 2018) The U.S. House of Representatives is considering an appropriations bill that includes “report language” that would restrict independent evaluation of pesticide hazards by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The report language, as part of the U.S. House of Representatives Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies FY2019 Appropriations Bill, directs ATSDR to “focus on its core mission of assessing hazardous exposures and working with communities, if requested, near toxic waste sites and not agricultural operations” [emphasis added]. As some may recall from “The Monsanto Papers,” Monsanto pushed to stop ATSDR from researching the cancer-causing properties of its herbicide Roundup/glyphosate. [Unsealed internal Monsanto documents from a federal lawsuit, dubbed “The Monsanto Papers,” showed evidence of questionable research practices by the company, inappropriate ties to a top EPA official, and possible “ghostwriting” of purportedly “independent” research studies.] There is also a significant cut to the budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee does not include the same restrictive language.

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative to reject language, attached to the House appropriations bill, that prohibits independent evaluation of agricultural chemical hazards by the government’s research agency (ATSDR).

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged with protecting communities from harmful health effects related to exposure to natural and human-made hazardous substances.

ATSDR’s unique focus is on the impact of hazardous substances on human health –attempting to ensure that Americans have a safe and healthy environment in which to work, play, and live. The agency also responds to environmental health emergencies; investigates emerging environmental health threats; conducts research on the health impacts of hazardous waste sites; and builds the capabilities of, and provides actionable guidance to, state and local health partners. It is the only federal agency that works directly with concerned citizens and communities to address environmental hazards.

In its examination of hazardous chemicals in the environment, ATSDR has developed toxicological profiles for many pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, but not yet glyphosate. The toxicological profiles examine in detail hazards of, and routes of exposure to, the chemicals. Because the profiles contain results based on real world exposures, they are generally held in higher regard than risk assessments produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is important to maintain the ability of ATSDR to continue to examine agricultural hazards.

Tell your U.S. Senators and Representative reject language, attached to the House appropriations bill, that prohibits independent evaluation of agricultural chemical hazards by the government’s research agency (ATSDR)

Letter to Congress:

Protect the independent evaluation of agricultural hazards by ATSDR

Please ensure that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) remains able to address all toxic chemical threats. Do not support report language to the final bill that eliminates the agency’s assessment of health effects caused by agricultural pesticide and other chemical use. This information is critical to the protection of health and the environment, and language prohibiting this type of assessment should be stripped out of the report accompanying the legislation.

Report language, as part of the U.S. House of Representatives Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies FY2019 Appropriations Bill, directs ATSDR to “focus on its core mission of assessing hazardous exposures and working with communities, if requested, near toxic waste sites and not agricultural operations.” Please ensure that this language is removed from the report of the final bill.

ATSDR is a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged with protecting communities from harmful health effects related to exposure to natural and human-made hazardous substances.

ATSDR’s unique focus is on the impact of hazardous substances on human health –attempting to ensure that Americans have a safe and healthy environment in which to work, play, and live. The agency also responds to environmental health emergencies; investigates emerging environmental health threats; conducts research on the health impacts of hazardous waste sites; and builds the capabilities of, and provides actionable guidance to, state and local health partners. It is the only federal agency that works directly with concerned citizens and communities to address environmental hazards.

In its examination of hazardous chemicals in the environment, ATSDR has developed toxicological profiles for many pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, but not yet Monsanto’s glyphosate –after Monsanto pushed to stop ATSDR from researching its carcinogenicity. The toxicological profiles examine in detail hazards of, and routes of exposure to, the chemicals. Because the profiles contain results based on real world exposures, they are generally held in higher regard than risk assessments produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is important to maintain the ability of ATSDR to continue to examine agricultural hazards.

Please do not prevent ATSDR from addressing agricultural hazards, and maintain an adequate funding level for the agency.

Sincerely,

(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