(Beyond Pesticides, November 14, 2016) New research published by Meracris, a provider of market data and trading for organic, non-GMO (genetically  modified organisms or (GE) genetically engineered) and certified agricultural commodities, documents  an 11 percent increase in organic farmland since 2014. The number of certified organic farms grew to almost 15,000, marking a 6.2 percent increase of organic farms between June 2016 and 2014. The top five states leading the transformation to organic fields are California, Montana, Wisconsin, New York and North Dakota. California heads the pack, claiming 688,000 acres dedicated to organic farming techniques. There are now 4.1 million acres of organic farmland in the United States, and that number is predicted to keep increasing as the demand for organic products continues to rise. A recent market analysis by the Organic Trade Association found that Americans have spent $43 billion on organic products in 2016 a $4.2 billion increase from 2015.

“The organic industry is growing and with lower commodity grain prices, and farmers are looking to add value and meet consumer demands,” says Scott Shander, and economist at Mercaris. Alex Heilman, a sales associate at Mercaris says that the number of organic acres will likely increase as larger companies like General Mills and Ardent Mills, the largest U.S. wheat miller, begin launching organic programs to meet consumer demands. Ardent Mills  has indicated it will double organic wheat planting by 2019. As more and more people become informed of the dangers that chemical-intensive and monocultural agriculture pose to biodiversity, there is an increase in those looking for alternatives and producers are struggling to keep up.

The percentage of crops that are organically grown is still extremely small, with U.S. organic corn accounting for less than one percent of total corn yields. Because  U.S. organic corn and soybean fields are not able to keep up with consumer demand, 25 percent of organic corn and 75 percent of organic soybeans are imported into the U.S., according to the report.

According to a report by Bloomberg, organic corn and soybean sales have doubled since last year, and countries like Romania and India are exporting their organic goods to the U.S. to fill the gap U.S. farmers cannot meet. Bloomberg points out  that organic milk sales have tripled since 2007, now accounting for 5 percent of the U.S. milk market. This uptick in sales has caused a shortage of organic feed grains, which is forcing farmers to import.

With such a high demand for organic goods, government agencies are working to increase U.S. supply. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has expanded its crop insurance options for farmers transitioning to organic. “In the past, there has been trouble getting feed and having a consistent, affordable supply,” said Miranda Leis, feed-program operations manager for Organic Valley, a Wisconsin-based cooperative whose members include about 1,800 dairy, egg, produce and grain farms. “Now there’s considerably more availability. Prices have come down, which is beneficial for the livestock members purchasing the feed, but it’s harder for the grain farmers who are trying to make a living selling that. It’s a pretty typical dynamic and it’s a tough one.” Says George Kalogridis, the program coordinator at Clarkson Grain Company. Clarkson Grain is working on a certification program that pays farmers a premium for crops grown after one year using organic methods. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) requires a three-year transition to organic production practices before the USDA certified organic label can be used in the marketplace.

Markets are now beginning to respond to consumer demand —notably the demand for responsible food production that organic production and processing provide. Organic food contributes to better health through reduced pesticide exposure for all and increased nutritional quality. Understanding the importance of eating organic food requires an assessment of the benefits of pesticide elimination throughout the production system and the resulting protection of farmworkers, air, water, land, and biodiversity, in addition to food safety. (See Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database, which captures the holistic benefits of organic food production.) This boom in organic sales and land use signals a wave of change overtaking the  agricultural and food production sector, as people become more and more educated to the negative effects that agribusiness has  on surrounding ecosystems and human health.

If you would like to know more about organic agriculture and its history, there is plenty of information on Beyond Pesticides’ website. For information on the health benefits organic agriculture has to offer, visit Beyond Pesticides’ Organic Agriculture webpage. With an informed public, we can continue to make responsible consumer decisions to allow market forces to phase out harmful chemical-intensive farming practices.  As the Rodale Institute says, “Organic farming is not simply the substitution of approved input materials. It is the replacement of a treatment approach with a process approach to create a balanced system of plant and animal interactions.”

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

Sources: Civil Eats, Take Part.

(Beyond Pesticides, November 11, 2016) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered a new formulation of dicamba to control weeds in cotton and soybean crops that have been genetically engineered (GE) to tolerate the chemical. The new formulation is called Xtendimax with VaporGripâ Technology, which is claimed to be specifically designed to have lower volatility. The registration, which is time-limited, will automatically expire after two years. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, EPA ignored the legal requirement to explore threats to endangered species, approving this new formulation without considering impacts to species protected under the Endangered Species Act. This decision comes directly after EPA announced that it is reapproving the toxic herbicide mixture Enlist Duo, and proposed to expand the number of crops and states in which it can be used.

Dicamba has been linked to damage of the kidney and liver, neurotoxicity, and developmental impacts. The chemical has a strong propensity to volatilize small particles of the herbicide into the air and drift far off-site. Sensitive crop species can be damaged by dicamba at levels in the parts per million.  A study published by Pennsylvania State scientists in late 2015 found dicamba drift was “frequently responsible for sublethal, off-target damage” to plants and insects. Researchers found that even very low rates of dicamba herbicide exposure negatively impacted plant flowering, and thus insect pollination.

Dicamba has caused a lot of controversy in the past. In August, farmers in Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee confronted widespread crop damage and braced for lower yields as a result of agrichemical giant Monsanto’s botched roll-out of GE soybean and cotton crops. The company, whose current line of glyphosate-tolerant crops are failing to control weeds throughout the U.S. and across the globe, developed a new line of soybean and cotton with traits that make it tolerate applications of dicamba. In October, EPA launched a criminal investigation at several locations in Missouri into the illegal spraying of dicamba. Many suspect that  farmers who planted the new dicamba-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) seeds in the region, when faced with a proliferation of pigweed, illegally sprayed dicamba across their fields, leading to drift and off-site crop damage to other farmers.

An important point of dicamba’s registration is that EPA has specified that the registration is time-limited and will expire after two years. This is a novel regulatory approach for the agency, and for all intents and purposes, appears like a conditional registration but is not. According to EPA, “Although we find  that herbicide resistance is adequately addressed by the required herbicide resistance plan and do  not expect off-site incidents to occur due to this registration, we are placing time limits on the registration to allow the agency to make appropriate regulatory changes or to allow the registration to expire if there are problems with off-site incidents or development of weed resistance.” This is not a viable alternative to conditional registration. That being said, it is good that the agency is recognizing problems with resistance, but critical to take the next step —to encourage alternatives instead of allowing resistance to occur in the first place.

A startling number of pesticides, nearly 65% of the more than 16,000 pesticides now on the market, were first approved by the process of “conditional registration.” Meanwhile, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency finalized its  decision to discontinue granting new conditional registrations. Conditional registrations have backfired for EPA in the past, leading to grueling legal processes between the agency and chemical manufacturers. Rather than provide avenues for chemical companies to game the system and poison the environment, advocates argue that EPA strongly  encourage pest prevention and readily available alternatives to toxic pesticides.

Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach  that prohibits hazardous chemical use and requires alternative assessments to identify less toxic practices and products under the unreasonable adverse effects clause of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow in the steps of countries like Canada and the European Union by following the precautionary principle, which generally approves products after they have been assessed for harm, not before. Beyond Pesticides  suggests an approach that rejects uses and exposures deemed acceptable under risk assessment calculations, and instead focuses on  safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as  organic agriculture, which prohibits the use of toxic chemicals. By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving.

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

Source: EPA, Center for Biological Diversity

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 10, 2016) In the wake of the monumental decision to elect Donald Trump as the 45^th President of the United States, Beyond Pesticides’ work to protect public health and the environment is more critical than ever. On Tuesday, November 8, 2016  saw Mr. Trump prevail in winning the presidency, and Republicans hold on to their majorities in both the U.S. House and the Senate. In the coming months, the President-elect will deliberate on  cabinet appointments, which will impact pesticide and agriculture policy and the laws and regulations that have the capacity to protect citizens from the harmful effects of chemical intensive practices.

According to an article in Scientific American, Donald Trump may  select Myron Ebell, “one of the best-known climate skeptics” and director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, to lead his U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transition team. This represents a  blow to  the environmental movement, which has been building momentum to fight global climate change, transition to organic agricultural systems, and protect the public from the threat of corporate mergers that threaten farmers, rural communities, and consumers. Despite having few details on environmental policy, it is clear from Donald Trump’s campaign speeches and the information available on his website that protecting the environment and public health is not high on his list of priorities.

At an August 2016 event in Des Moines, Iowa, Mr. Trump stated that, “We are going to end the EPA intrusion into your family homes and into your family farms for no reason. We are going to get rid of a lot of those regulations that don’t mean anything except cost you a lot of money and a lot of time and, in many cases, you lose your farms over the regulations.”

Mr. Trump has also said that he will request a “top-down review” of the Endangered Species Act, as he believes it is “a tool to block economic development, deny property rights to American landowners, and enrich activist groups and lawyers.” The Endangered Species Act, which recently listed seven bee species, is a crucial law that conserves plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found, which are constantly under attack from chemical intensive agriculture.

In addition to the results of the Presidential and Congressional races, several states have voted to legalize marijuana in various capacities. Medical marijuana initiatives were approved in Arkansas, Florida, and North Dakota, and recreational marijuana initiatives were approved in Massachusetts, Nevada, and California. As states continue to legalize the production of marijuana for medical and recreational purposes, regulations governing its cultivation may allow the application of pesticides untested for use in the plant’s production, raising safety issues for patients and consumers. In the absence of federal regulations governing pesticides in cannabis production, the use of pesticides not registered by EPA is understood to be illegal. Several states, including New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine, have codified this understanding by adopting policies that prohibit all federally registered pesticides. Other states have taken the position that state policy is unnecessary, since EPA, due to cannabis’ narcotic status by the federal government, has not registered any pesticides for marijuana production and unregistered pesticide use is illegal. As more states legalize marijuana use, it is crucial that any new growing standards reflect a systems-based organic approach.

As  Administrator of the EPA, Gina McGarthy,  said  during her presentation to Montgomery County, Maryland in April 2016, national change starts at the local level. There is movement across the country to adopt ordinances that stop pesticide use on public property and, where allowed, private property. The passage of the ordinance in South Portland to ban lawn pesticides is similar to those passed in the town of  Ogunquit, ME,  and  Takoma Park  and  Montgomery County, MD. The legislatures  of  Connecticut and Maryland  passed laws this year that restrict the retail sale of  products containing  neonicotinoid pesticides. And,  the Governor  of Minnesota recently  issued an executive order restricting neonicotinoid use, while  numerous municipalities  across the country  have taken similar step to stop use on their properties.

Our work is at the heart of an organic transformation that crosses issues of clean air and water, healthy food, and soil practices that build organic matter, sequesters carbon, and slows climate change. The adoption of organic methods, particularly no-till organic, is an opportunity for farming both to mitigate agriculture’s contributions to climate change and cope with the effects climate change has had and will have on agriculture. In 2014, Rodale Institute  published a white paper that explains  it is possible to sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions by switching to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices.

Beyond Pesticides will continue to fight for the future of the planet, by supporting and advocating for organic land management, holding federal agencies accountable to their defined duties, and engaging with local communities to pass progressive pesticide initiatives that are protective of environmental and public health. For more information on what you can do, visit our Action Alerts sign-up page, read about Tools for Change to use in your local community, and consider becoming a member today.

Source: Politico, Scientific American

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 9, 2016) Seven state attorneys general (AGs) have joined together to investigate federal antitrust concerns related to the merger of agrochemcial giants Dow Chemical and DuPont. A separate group of state AGs is expected to form to simultaneously probe a similar merger between Bayer and Monsanto. This involvement signals grave concern from states over the prospect of these large-scale mergers, which would concentrate control in fewer companies, thus giving monopoly status to a smaller number of chemical manufacturers in the  agrochemical industry. Reuters reports that the involvement of the state AGs will increase scrutiny of these mega deals, as they were previously only being reviewed at the federal level by antitrust experts at the Department of Justice (DOJ). Since DOJ has yet to file a lawsuit opposing the mergers, groups and individuals who want to see the mergers blocked are thrilled to see the states get involved and urge DOJ to act.

The discussion on these mergers began back in December 2015 when chemical giants DuPont and Dow Chemical Companies announced that their boards of directors  unanimously  approved a merger of their companies  through an all-stock deal, valuing the combined market capitalization at $130 billion. Then, in May of 2016,  Bayer AG made its first bid for Monsanto, worth $42 billion, in an attempt to swallow the global seed and chemical producer and become the world’s biggest farm chemical supplier. Though that initial bid was initially rejected, Bayer and Monsanto eventually reached an agreement in September 2016 to the tune of $66 billion. A third industry merger between  China National Chemical Corp and Syngenta AG is also in the works, having received the go-ahead from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS). However, the ChemChina-Syngenta merger is unlikely to be investigated by state AGs, as it does not involve a U.S. company.

The consolidation of these large players in an already tightly controlled industry is concerning for dozens of reasons. Advocates say that not only do the proposed mergers likely violate U.S. antitrust law, they also pose significant potential threats to U.S. security interests, undermine food security in the United States and worldwide, disrupt trade flows, and accelerate the international consolidation of the food and agribusiness industries to the detriment of American farmers, rural communities, and consumers. If allowed to combine, Dow and DuPont will  occupy 41 percent of the market for U.S. corn seeds and traits and 38 percent of the U.S. soybean seeds and traits market, according to a Morgan Stanley research report in February. It is also estimated that if all the deals were to close, the three resulting companies would control nearly 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market, a harrowing statistic for anyone concerned about the impact chemical-intensive agriculture has on soil quality and overall environmental health.

According to sources from some of the state AG offices joining the probe, who wish to remain unnamed, the states are concerned that the companies may raise pesticide and herbicide prices for farmers following a merger, and have less incentive to compete to introduce better and cheaper products. They also suggested that Bayer-Monsanto will likely focus on the companies’ overlap in cotton seed as well as trait licensing, since Bayer licenses genetic traits that make seeds resistant to Liberty, a popular herbicide, while Monsanto licenses traits that make seeds resistant to Roundup, another popular herbicide containing glyphosate. While it will ultimately be up to DOJ to decide whether to file a lawsuit against either of the mergers, the state AG offices will be crucial in providing information on how the mergers  will  affect their jurisdictions. This method of investigation has worked to stop mergers in the past when the DOJ, with help from the states, sued last July to stop two controversial health insurance provider deals in Aetna Inc’s plan to buy Humana Inc and Anthem Inc’s bid for Cigna Corp. In that case,  11  states and the District of Columbia joined the federal government in the Anthem lawsuit while eight states and Washington, DC, joined the Aetna lawsuit.

Wondering how to get involved in opposing the agrochemical industry mergers? Reaching out to your U.S.  Senators  and  Representative  to ask them to reject the approval of a merger that consolidate seed availability, and encourage them to instead focus on increasing the availability of organic seeds, which do not negatively impact soil, water or human health is a good way to start. Additionally, reaching out to your  state AG office  and encouraging them to join the merger investigations is another way to ensure the DOJ takes action to block the mergers. Finally, you can educate yourself on organic practices, which work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance that makes chemical fertilizers and toxic synthetic pesticides obsolete.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, November 8, 2016) A report published last month from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finds that over 2,600 cases of acute pesticide poisoning occurred among workers in 12 states between 2007 and 2011. The report, published by CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), highlights the hazards conventional pesticides pose to both farm and non-farm workers who apply these inherently toxic chemicals. Results of this study underscore the importance of calls from public health and farmworker advocacy groups for improving the protection of workers who grow and harvest the food that makes its way to American’s dinner plates. The results also support a wholesale transition away from toxic chemicals in favor of organic and sustainable alternatives.

CDC’s report, collected from 12 farming states (including California, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Washington), focuses on acute pesticide poisonings. The data gathered comes from NIOSH’s Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks (SENSOR) program, a project that has tracked pesticide-related illness in the U.S. since 1987.

The report finds that pesticide poisoning incidents among agricultural workers are 37 times those of nonagricultural workers. Proportionally, acute poisoning rates among nonagricultural pesticide applicators were 0.5/100,000, while rates for farmworkers were 18.6/100,000. Most poisonings result from exposure to insecticides or herbicides. Within insecticide exposures, synthetic pyrethroids account for the highest number of incidents, while with herbicides glyphosate account for most poisoning events.

CDC classifies incidents as either low, moderate, or high severity. Low severity incidents usually do not require treatments and individuals return to work within three days. Moderate severity incidents require treatment, but are usually not life-threatening, and individuals return to work within 5 days. High severity cases are life threatening, require hospitalization, often lose more than 5 days from work, and may result in permanent damage. The report found 80% of recorded cases were low severity, 18% moderate severity, and one percent high severity.

However, it is critical to understand that these numbers only tell part of the story. As the study notes, the 2,600 acute poisoning cases it was able to document are likely an underestimate. This is because many pesticide-related illnesses are not captured by regulators as they are never reported, or individuals do not seek medical care. There are additional issues with health care providers being able to diagnose pesticide poisonings. The report notes, “[B]ecause the signs and symptoms of acute pesticide-related illnesses are not pathognomonic, and because most health care professionals are not acquainted with the recognition and management of these illnesses, many persons who seek medical care might not receive an accurate diagnosis.” Even when there is an accurate diagnosis, the study explains that many cases are simply not reported, despite the fact that each participating state has a mandatory requirement to report pesticide-related illnesses.

Many farmworkers do not report their illnesses to their employers because of the risk that they will lose their job. Although CDC may classify an illness as “low severity,” the fact is that with many farmworkers any amount of time off work means they will be fired. After over 20 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently updated its Agricultural Worker Protection Standards, which make important progress in protection, but did lack some significant safety measures. Ultimately, the key to making changes in the lives of farmworkers and farmworker families will be adequate enforcement of new provisions, and a transition to safer practices.

Geoffrey Calvert, MD, lead author of the CDC report, has a long history of tracking pesticide poisoning’s and authoring analyses of incidents in peer-reviewed literature. In 2015, Dr. Calvert evaluated a farmworker poisoning incident in Washington State, where over 20 farmworkers were sickened, finding multiple shortfalls in terms of following and enforcing pesticide law. He  spoke about the SENSOR program at Beyond Pesticides 33^rd National Pesticide Forum in Orlando, Florida last year. Click here to watch his speech.

Our food choices have a direct effect on those who grow and harvest what we eat around the world. This is why  food labeled organic  is the right choice. In addition to serious health questions linked to actual residues of toxic pesticides on the food we eat, our food buying decisions support or reject hazardous agricultural practices, and the protection of farmworkers and farm families. To learn about how buying organic food can help protect farmworkers, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience guide. And for more information on how you can get educated and active in protecting farmworkers and changing our agricultural system towards safer practices, see Beyond Pesticides new Agricultural Justice webpage.

Source: Occupational Health and Safety, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(Beyond Pesticides,  November 7,  2016) In a letter  last week on the widely used weedkiller  atrazine, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) and 105 of his colleagues told Gina McCarthy, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that, “It would be irresponsible to greatly restrict one of the safest and most trusted herbicides on the market.” The  letter was triggered by EPA’s release in June of its  draft  Ecological Risk Assessment on atrazine, which found levels of concerns exceeded by as much as 200-fold for some organisms. Lawmakers indicated that the draft assessment in its present form, “Would have a significant impact on farmers and rural communities nationwide.” Despite a wealth of information to the contrary, they claim that restricting the use of atrazine would put an unnecessary financial burden on farmers.

Atrazine, produced by Syngenta,  is the second-most widely used pesticide in the U.S., with over 73 million pounds applied each year. While Rep. Buck claims that atrazine is a safe chemical, years of research shows that the chemical poses unacceptable risks to human health and the environment.  Once applied, the chemical often washes into surface water and leaches into groundwater. Water contamination issues spurred community water utilities  across the U.S. to file a class-action lawsuit to remove the pesticide from drinking water supplies. In 2012, Syngenta agreed to a $105 million settlement, reimbursing 1,085 community water utilities for the cost they incurred cleaning up the toxic herbicide.

Under EPA drinking water standards that are deemed “safe,” atrazine has been linked to endocrine disrupting effects. In their letter, the GOP lawmakers state that the herbicide has been “one of the most thoroughly studied herbicides.” In fact, studies of atrazine have linked the pesticide to numerous adverse health effects, including childhood cancer, choanal atresia, and gastroschisis, a rare birth defect. A 2010  study  led by Sarah Waller, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, linked a 2- to 4-fold increase in gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall that results in a baby’s intestines  moving outside the body) over the past three decade to atrazine use in agriculture. Dr. Waller’s group is not the first to report a link between gastroschisis-like birth defects and  atrazine exposure. In 2007, Indiana researchers reported in the Journal  of Pediatric Surgery  that in their state, where rates of such birth defects are also very high, atrazine levels were significantly linked with the rate of gastroschisis and other defects. Later in 2009, another study published in Acta Paediatrica found similar results for the general rate of birth defects in the U.S. population. This research shows  the increased risk of nine birth defects in babies born to mothers who conceived between April and July, when surface water levels of the pesticide are highest.

Atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in rivers, streams and wells in the United States. This is cause for concern especially in  freshwater ecosystems that are susceptible to even the smallest amount of contaminants in their ecosystems. The study, Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis), led by Tyrone Hayes, PhD, at the University of California, Berkeley, demonstrates the reproductive consequences of atrazine exposure in adult amphibians. Dr. Hayes and other researchers examined a group of 40 African clawed frogs, all of which carried male chromosomes. In his study, tadpoles were subject to an atrazine concentration of 2.5 parts per billion, a concentration that is within federal drinking water standards. His results found that genetic male frogs exposed to atrazine concentrations in the environment developed into functioning female frogs.

“It’s a chemical . . . that causes hormone havoc,” Dr. Hayes commented. “You need to look at things that are affecting wildlife, and realize that, biologically, we’re not that different.” See Dr. Hayes talk, Learning from an Environmental Tragedy, at the 33rd National Pesticide Forum.

Rep. Buck’s letter also states, without citation, that the restriction of atrazine will cost farmers an additional $59 dollars per acre. However, an economic study published in 2014, Would banning atrazine benefit farmers?, finds that farmers will save money. The research, led by Frank Ackerman, PhD, professor at Tufts University’s Global Development and Environment Institute, disputes the conclusions of a Syngenta study, which lawmakers are likely referencing in their letter. Dr. Ackerman and his colleagues critically reviewed five papers released by Syngenta’s Atrazine Benefits Team (ABT) in 2011.   Syngenta’s ABT found that the removal of atrazine would diminish corn yields by 4.4% and increasing prices by 8%. Using these assumptions, Dr. Ackerman and his team calculated that corn growers’ revenue would actually  increase  by 3.2%, providing a total of $1.7 billion to farmers and the U.S. economy, with minimal price changes for consumers.

The letter from Rep. Buck and his GOP colleagues criticizes EPA, stating that it is using science that the agency’s own Science Advisory Panel rejected in 2012. In fact, EPA cites recent studies in the independent peer reviewed literature in its analysis. New science has replicated the findings of earlier studies going back to 2012 and before. The congressional letter appears to be a clear denial of the science on par with climate change denial.

If you’re interested in taking action to help eliminate atrazine from use across the country, sign Beyond Pesticides’ petition to EPA calling for the cancellation of this chemical today. Although the public comment period on the agency’s draft ecological risk assessment for atrazine is closed, stay tuned for the latest opportunity to voice your opinion directly to the agency by signing up for Beyond Pesticides action alerts.

Source: Politico  

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 4, 2016) After withdrawing in January its registration approval for the toxic herbicide mixture Enlist Duo, for use in genetically engineered (GE) crops, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  announced  this week that it is not only reapproving  the chemical combination, but it is proposing to expand the number of crops and states in which it can be used. The expanded registration will allow the use of Enlist Duo on GE cotton and extend use to GE corn, soybean, and cotton from 15 states to 34 states. This follows an EPA review triggered by manufacturer claims that Enlist Duo ingredients have synergistic effects, which EPA had not evaluated. According to EPA, its latest review of the data found no synergistic effects.

Ironically, this EPA-proposed expansion of pesticide use in GE crops across the U.S. comes on the heels of a front page Sunday New York Times exposé  that concludes “genetically engineered crops fail to increase yields and reduce pesticide use,” despite continuing claims to the contrary.

Developed by Dow AgroSciences (Dow), Enlist Duo is an herbicide that incorporates a mix of glyphosate and a new formulation of 2,4-D, intended for use on GE Enlist-Duo-tolerant corn and soybean crops. The herbicide has been marketed as a “solution” for the control of glyphosate-resistant weeds brought on by the widespread use of the chemical on glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops over the last decade. These super weeds now infest tens of millions of acres of U.S. farmland. Enlist Duo was officially registered in October 2014, just another demonstration of the failings of the U.S. pesticide and agricultural regulatory system to put people and the environment before economic incentives and industry bottom lines.

Shortly after it was registered, a lawsuit was filed by Beyond Pesticides and other environmental groups, challenging the approval under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The groups argued that in its approval of Enlist Duo EPA disregarded negative impacts on sensitive species, including nearly two hundred species protected under the Endangered Species Act, from the increased use of the toxic cocktail on crops genetically engineered to withstand its application. In addition to environmental damage, these chemicals have been linked to a myriad of human health problems. 2,4-D has been linked to soft tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), neurotoxicity, kidney/liver damage, and harm to the reproductive system. Additionally, glyphosate has been classified as a human carcinogen  based on laboratory studies by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2015.

In November 2015, EPA revoked the registration of Dow’s Enlist Duo based on new information on the toxic effects associated with the synergistic interactions of the chemical cocktail, including  2,4-D, glyphosate, and other undisclosed ingredients, to plants outside the treated area. In January 2016, the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the revocation  in a three-sentence order that gave no reasoning. EPA was facing pressure from environmental groups and Dow’s legal team, and environmentalists believed the agency would have to choose whether it would cancel the pesticides, acknowledging the imminent hazard and removing it from the market immediately, or undergo a lengthy cancellation process.

Instead, EPA has now reapproved Enlist Duo, reporting that it revoked the registration due to claims of product ingredient synergy by the herbicide’s registrant, Dow. EPA then requested and received additional synergy data from Dow, and have stated that after review of the additional data, it has  found a lack of synergistic effects, despite Dow’s claims. According to EPA, “These data demonstrate that the combination of 2,4-D choline and glyphosate in Enlist Duo does not show any increased toxicity to plants and is therefore not of concern.” EPA seeks to amend the registration and add an additional 19 states where Enlist Duo can be used. While EPA has stated that there is no reason to be concerned, research points to the fact that synergy between chemicals can be a real and serious problem.

A 2002  study by Warren Porter, PhD., professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, examined the effect of fetal exposures to a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba exposure ””frequently used together in lawn products like Weed B Gone Max and Trillion”” on the mother’s ability to successfully bring young to birth and weaning. Researchers looked at pesticide concentrations diluted to levels that are considered “safe” by EPA and found that it is capable of inducing abortions and resorptions of fetuses at very low parts per billion. The greatest effect was at the lowest dose. Beyond Pesticides has long been critical of EPA’s risk assessment process, which only evaluates the toxicity of an active pesticide ingredient alone, and does not consider the hazards of pesticide mixtures (or inert ingredients) in common pesticide products. For more information on pesticide synergy, see our 2004 article, Synergy: The Big Unknowns of Pesticide Exposure.

How to Make a Difference, NOW

EPA is seeking public comments on the proposed amendment to the registration to include GE cotton and to extend the use for GE corn, soybean and cotton to an additional 19 states. Public comments must be submitted by December 1, 2016 to EPA docket # EPA”‘HQ”‘OPP”‘2016”‘0594 at www.regulations.gov. Write a comment to EPA telling them that you do not support the expansion of Enlist Duo registration to include GE cotton, nor do you support the use of Enlist Duo in 19 new states.

As the crisis in weed resistance escalates, threatening crop productivity and profitability, advocates point to organic agriculture as a solution that protects public health, the environment, and farmers’ livelihood.  The New York Times highlights this need to move towards organic, finding that the shift to GE crops in the United States and Canada over the past two decades has increased the use of pesticides in North America, and failed to produce any significant yield increases.

By strengthening on-farm resources, such as soil fertility, pasture and biodiversity, organic farmers can minimize and even avoid the production challenges that most genetically engineered organisms have been falsely-marketed as solving. To learn more about organic agriculture, see  Beyond Pesticides Organic Program Page.

Source: EPA, Center for Biological Diversity

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

(Beyond Pesticides,  November 3, 2016) Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), represented by Richman Law Group, filed a lawsuit yesterday in Superior Court in the District of Columbia against Sioux Honey Association, for the deceptive and misleading labeling of its Sue Bee and Aunt Sue’s honey brands. The suit follows news that Sue Bee honey products labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural” tested positive for glyphosate residue. Glyphosate, a known endocrine disrupter and, according to the World Health Organization, a probable human carcinogen, is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup ® herbicide.

“A consumer seeing the words ”˜Pure,’ ”˜100% Pure’ or ”˜Natural’ on a honey product would reasonably expect that product to contain nothing other than honey,” said OCA International Director, Ronnie Cummins. “Regardless of how these products came to be contaminated, Sioux Honey has an obligation to either prevent the contamination, disclose the contamination, or at the very least, remove these deceptive labels.”

Jay Feldman, Executive Director of Beyond Pesticides, said: “We join and support those beekeepers who are working to stop hazardous pesticides uses that cause widespread contamination of crops, including honey. Until U.S. regulatory agencies prohibit Monsanto and other manufacturers of glyphosate from selling pesticides that end up in the food supply, we need to protect consumers by demanding truth and transparency in labeling.”

The lawsuit specifically cites Sue Bee Clover Honey, labeled “Pure”; Aunt Sue’s Farmers Market Clover Honey, labeled “100% Pure”; and Aunt Sue’s Raw Honey, labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural. Plaintiffs cite testing, conducted by the FDA, of honey that found 41 ppb (parts per billion) of glyphosate.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not set a tolerance (or acceptable level) of glyphosate in honey, raising questions about the legality of any level. EPA was supposed to rule in 2015 on whether or not to re-register glyphosate, but has failed to complete the review process on schedule.

Beyond Pesticides submitted comments to EPA in 2009 during the glyphosate registration review period, asking them to cancel glyphosate’s registration due to the human and environmental risks, as well as the availability of alternatives. In July 2013, Beyond Pesticides, along with twenty-two other organizations, called on the EPA not to increase the allowable residue limits for glyphosate on certain food commodities, asserting that an increase in glyphosate tolerances and associated increases in glyphosate use puts the public at additional, unreasonable risk. In 2016 Beyond Pesticides once again sent a letter to and met with EPA officials requesting the routine testing of glyphosate.

Beyond Pesticides advocates for an approach that focuses on safer alternatives that are proven effective, such as organic agriculture. Thus, the best way to avoid glyphosate residues in a wide range of food and drinks is to buy and support organic agriculture and the USDA organic label over conventional agriculture. Beyond Pesticides’ database, Eating With a Conscience (EWAC), provides information on the pesticides that could be present in the food we eat, and why food labeled organic is the right choice. EWAC also includes information on the impacts chemical-intensive agriculture has on farm workers, water, and our threatened pollinators.

Read the  formal complaint here: www.beyondpesticides.org//assets/media/documents/Sue Bee Complaint Stamped.pdf.

See a copy of our press release here.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, November 2, 2016) A California-based company, Steep Hill, revered as the global leader in cannabis testing and analytics, recently released a report on the prevalence
of pesticide contamination in the medical cannabis supply chain in California. The results reveal that 84% of samples tested positive for pesticide residues, a number significantly higher than experts had previously expected, causing great cause for concern for California medical cannabis consumers.

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

In its  analysis, Steep Hill found residue of the chemical myclobutanil, a key ingredient in pesticide Eagle 20, in more than 65 percent of samples tested during a 30-day period. Eagle 20, a fungicide, has not been approved for use on marijuana, and its active ingredient  myclobutanil is an  endocrine (hormone) disruptor classified as “toxic” by Beyond Pesticides.  Myclobutanil is also listed as a reproductive toxicant in the California Environmental Protection Agency  Proposition 65: Chemicals Know to the State to Cause Cancer or Reproductive Toxicity. In Colorado, the presence of Eagle 20 in testing marijuana was enough to cause the Denver Department of Environmental Health (DDOH) to quarantine tens of thousands of marijuana plants, effectively keeping them off the market, an action to protect consumers that was eventually supported by a U.S. District Court judge. In 2015, two marijuana users in Colorado, one of whom suffers from a brain tumor and holds a medical card to use the product, sued a large marijuana company over illegal use of Eagle 20 in their medical marijuana, asking for damages.

When burned, myclobutanil turns into a poisonous hydrogen cyanide, a colorless and extremely poisonous compound that can be lethal in high doses. Hydrogen cyanide affects organs most sensitive to low oxygen levels, including the brain, cardiovascular system and lungs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hydrogen Cyanide is also a Schedule 3 substance under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“Those in the cannabis community who feel that all cannabis is safe are not correct given this data. Smoking a joint of pesticide-contaminated cannabis could potentially expose the body to lethal chemicals,” says Jmichaele Keller, president and CEO of Steep Hill. He went on to point out the problems with pesticide regulation in marijuana, as seen in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon, where officials are trying to navigate the issue of regulation in the recreational cannabis markets, as well as medical markets.

“As far as we’re concerned, medicine should always be clean, safe, and effective. Unfortunately, our recent study discovered that 83.2% of the samples assessed by our triple quadrupole mass spectrometer contained pesticides that would have failed under the Oregon regulations. As of today, this tainted product could be sold in most dispensaries throughout the State of California without any way of informing the patients about the risks of pesticide exposure,” said Keller.

In order to do this, Steep Hill believes that better tests, like the one it has  developed, are necessary across the board to protect public health and safety from pesticide contaminated marijuana.  Steep Hill compared their results to those from SC Labs, another testing company, and found they detected pesticides in less than 3% of the samples tested over a 30-day period ending October 10, 2016. During the same period, Steep Hill tested and reported pesticides in over 84% of cannabis which would have failed under the State of Oregon’s pesticide regulations. The discrepancy in findings between labs demonstrates the need for the state to pass regulations that would ensure all marijuana undergo the same rigorous testing before products are made available for sale.

While moves by California and other states to curb illegal pesticide use in marijuana represent steps in the right direction, they also contain significant pitfalls and loopholes that allow contaminated cannabis to enter the market where it threatens public health. Beyond Pesticides continues to encourage states to take a stronger approach to regulating this budding industry, so that it blazes an agricultural path that protects its most sensitive at-risk users. Three elements must be passed and enforced in order to do so. They are:
1. A prohibition on the use of federally registered pesticides on cannabis;
2. Allowance of pesticides exempt from federal registration, but not those that are only exempt from tolerances and;
3. Requirements for an organic system plan that focuses on sustainable practices and only 25b products as a last resort.

Implementing these three requirements will ensure the sustainable growth of a new agricultural industry, and lead to the protection of public health. For more information and background this important issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ report  Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options.

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

Source: Steep Hill Press Release

(Beyond Pesticides, November 1, 2016) A report published this weekend in The New York Times finds that the shift to genetically engineered (GE) crops in the United States and Canada over the past two decades has increased the use of pesticides in North America, and failed to produce any significant yield increases. When the technology was first introduced, multinational agrichemical companies claimed just the opposite would occur- yields would spike and pesticide use would be minimized. As far back as 1998, Beyond Pesticides asked, “Is the failed pesticide paradigm being genetically engineered?” As the Times and numerous other publications before it have found, the answer was and still is yes.

The far-ranging expose by the Times on the state of the GE industry used publicly available data from the United Nations to compare yields between that of Europe and North America. Their data show “no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre” for the United States and Canada over Western Europe during the time of GE crop adoption. A comparison between rapeseed yields in Canada and Western Europe shows increases in both regions, with Europe’s yields consistently higher, independent of the use of GE crops. For corn, gains in food per acre were found to be roughly equal between the U.S. and Western Europe, with both rising from roughly 50,000 hectograms per hectare (hph) in 1985 to 100,000 hph in 2014. Sugar beets, for which GE varieties have been increasingly planted in the U.S. over the last decade, tell a different story. While yields in Europe have risen over 100,000 hph without genetic modification, American beet field harvests have remained relatively flat.

Differences in yields tell an important story, but understanding increases in pesticide use helps underscore the ecological and public health dangers of GE crops. As crop yields in Europe increased, pesticide use (fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides) decreased dramatically. As yields in the U.S. remained flat, insecticide use has remained the same, while the spread of herbicide-tolerant weeds has caused use of these chemicals to skyrocket. Much of this can be attributed specifically to traits within GE crops that allow plants to tolerate repeated spraying of the herbicide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Again, as we wrote in 1998, “It is well documented that when a single herbicide is used repeatedly on a crop, the chances of herbicide resistance developing in weed populations greatly increases.”

Increased use of pesticides has important public health and environmental implications. Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that the herbicide glyphosate is human carcinogen based on laboratory animal studies. Other recent research finds the chemical interferes with proper DNA functioning, correlating with the onset of numerous common diseases.

In addition to impacts on human health, glyphosate has been linked to adverse effects on  earthworms and other soil biota, as well as  shape changes in amphibians. The widespread use of the chemical on glyphosate-tolerant GE crops has led it to be implicated in the  decline of monarch butterflies, whose sole source to lay their eggs, milkweed plants, are being devastated as a result of incessant use of glyphosate.

Although insecticide incorporated GE crops, for which genes have been edited to incorporate the active delta toxin produced by the soil organism bacillus thuringiensis (Bt),  have not yet led to significant insecticide increases, there is some indication that current spates of resistance in target pests is now trending use upwards. In attempts to avoid or slow resistance, GE companies have begun to “stack” multiple strains of the Bt delta toxin. However, research is finding that once a pest is resistant to one strain of Bt, it is likely to be cross-resistant to other varieties.

In response to the Times’ report, industry appeared to flatly deny that GE crops do not confer benefits. “Biotech tools have clearly driven yield increases enormously,” Monsanto chief technology officer Robert Fraley, PhD, told The New York Times. Despite the professings of chemical company executives, the Times revealed the true benefit conferred by this technology: “The industry is winning on both ends ”” because the same companies make and sell both the genetically modified plants and the poisons. Driven by these sales, the combined market capitalizations of Monsanto, the largest seed company, and Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide giant, have grown more than sixfold in the last decade and a half.”

German chemical company Bayer, which is currently working on a deal to buy U.S-based Monsanto, has pledged not to push GE crops on Europe. While this is a smart move for their business in Europe, given the overwhelming data on the failure of GE technology, it would be prudent for the company to make the same pledge for the United States and Canada. Moving beyond GE agriculture and the failed pesticide paradigm will provide farmers across the continent with an opportunity to implement safer practices that are in line with natural systems.

Concerned consumers in the U.S. can help support a transition to safer, successful agricultural practices today by buying organic whenever possible. A study published earlier this year by researchers at Washington State University found that organic agriculture can help feed the world into the future, with yields on par with conventional systems. Organic is not only beneficial in the long run; it provides tangible benefits to farmers and farming communities. A White Paper published in June of this year found that U.S. counties with high levels of organic crop production boost average incomes by $2,000. By law, food certified organic by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is not allowed to be genetically engineered, and no toxic synthetic pesticides are permitted to be used on organic crops. Instead of gaming nature in a bid to sell more chemicals, organic crop production works with nature, producing healthier food with less risk to public health, wildlife, water quality and the wider environment.

For more information on why organic is the right choice, see Beyond Pesticides’ program page. And for more information about the failed promises of GE agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Genetic Engineering webpage.

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

Source: The New York Times

(Beyond Pesticides, October 31, 2016) Only three of the top 20 food retailers receive a passing grade when it comes to their pollinator protection policies, according to a report released by Friends of the Earth. Swarming the Aisles; Rating Top Retailers on Bee-Friendly and Organic Food takes a closer look at the policies and practices of food retailers across the country and creates an industry scorecard highlighting how each individual retailer fairs in categories like organics, pollinator protection, and pesticide reduction. While some individual chains performed well, overall the results indicate that food retailers have a long way to go to meet consumer demand when it comes to protecting pollinators and establishing organic policies.

Major retailers often lag behind public opinion when it comes to changing their official policies to promote practices that protect environmental interests. In 2014, Friends of the Earth, Beyond Pesticides and allies released a report showing that 36 out of 71 (51 percent) of garden plant samples purchased at top garden retailers in 18 cities in the United States and Canada contain  neonicotinoid  (neonic) pesticides ”” a key contributor to recent bee declines, despite the fact more than half a million Americans had signed petitions demanding that Lowe’s and Home Depot stop selling neonics. While it took more than two years for Home Depot and Lowes to respond to consumer pressure, their eventual commitment to eliminate bee-toxic products was encouraging for consumers and environmental groups, who hope to see a similar shift in policy from grocery retailers.

Smaller retailers have also taken notice and are working on removing neonics and other toxic pesticides from their shelves. Eldredge Lumber and Hardware in York, Maine, an ACE hardware store, has transitioned its  shelves  from harmful synthetic pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic materials.  Eldredge is encouraging consumers to employ alternatives by consciously stocking their shelves with organic compatible products. Efforts by local businesses to stock alternatives and educate consumers on their use is a wonderful example of creating change through grassroots efforts and a bottom-up approach.

New data from a  YouGov Poll  released alongside the report from Friends of the Earth, in partnership with SumOfUs, found that 80 percent of Americans believe it is important to eliminate neonicotinoids from agriculture. Among Americans who grocery shop for their household, 65 percent claim they would be more likely to shop at a grocery store that has formally committed to eliminating neonicotinoids. The poll also revealed that 59 percent of American grocery shoppers believe it is important for grocery stores to sell organic food, and 43 percent would be more likely to shop at a grocery store that sells more organic food than their current grocery store. All of these findings point to the fact that consumers are looking for grocery stores that not only offer organic alternatives, but that use their power in the market to advance policies that protect pollinators and eliminate the use of toxic pesticides.

The report reveals that while consumer demand for organic and pesticide-free food continues to show double-digit growth, only four of the top food retailers,  Albertsons, Costco, Target (TGT) and  Whole Foods, have adopted a publicly available company commitment to increase offerings of certified organic food  or to disclose data on the current percentage of organic offerings or organic sales. In addition to these retailers,  Aldi,  Food Lion, part of the  Delhaize Group (DEG), and  Kroger (KR)  disclosed data on the current percentage of organic offerings or organic sales. Moreover, none of the retailers have made a publicly available commitment to source organic from American farmers.

The primary sources of information for this scorecard include publicly available information, including company websites, company annual reports, SEC filings, corporate social responsibility and sustainability reports, press coverage and industry analyses. Sixteen of the top 20 food retailers were predominately unresponsive to Friends of the Earth’s requests for information via surveys, calls and letters. The report was not the first action taken by environmental organizations to put pressure on retailers to adopt more environmentally friendly sourcing policies, as a coalition of environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, sent a letter earlier this fall urging the food retailers to eliminate pollinator-toxic pesticides and increase USDA certified organic food and beverages to 15 percent of overall offerings by 2025, prioritizing domestic, regional and local producers.

For more on what you can do to help pollinators visit out  Bee Protective program page. To assist local garden centers and hardware stores in transitioning their customers to organic practices, Beyond Pesticides has crafted the “Well-Stocked Hardware Store,” which provides the products and tools necessary to support a move to healthy, organic landscapes, and click here to watch Beyond Pesticides video Making the Switch. This guide fits in with  Beyond Pesticides’ Model Pesticide Policy and Implementation Plan for Communities, but can be used independently for hardware stores and garden supply centers looking to encourage the use of products and practices that protect the health of their customers, community, and the wider environment.

Source: Friends of the Earth Press Release, Report

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 27, 2016) Lawmakers in the New Jersey House and Senate introduced bills this legislative session to stop the use of toxic lawn care pesticides on children’s playing fields. The Safe Playing Fields Act, introduced by Representatives Daniel Benson (D) and Holly Schepisi (R) in the New Jersey Assembly and Senator Shirley Turner (D) in the Senate will  eliminate the use of toxic registered pesticides on school grounds in favor of “low impact pesticides” considered minimum risk by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This is the latest legislative push to pass this Act after attempts in 2011 and 2012.

The bill is modeled on similar efforts that have been successfully implemented in the states of New York and Connecticut. Connecticut first passed An Act Concerning Pesticides at Schools and Day Care Facilities in 2005, which restricted toxic pesticide use on elementary school grounds in the state. The act has been amended multiple times. First in 2007, An Act Banning Pesticide Use on School Grounds extended prohibitions to students in schools up to grade 8. In 2009, Connecticut’s law was amended again to extend pesticide protections to day care centers. Last year, the state passed another update, this time banning toxic lawn care chemicals on municipal playgrounds. New York’s Child Safe Playing Fields Act also restricts toxic pesticides at day care centers, preschools, and on school grounds, applying these protections to all students, from kindergarten through high school. Under these laws, use of toxic registered pesticides is only permitted if there is an emergency deemed threatening to human health, and it is approved by school administrators.

Updates to laws that protect New Jersey school children from toxic pesticides are long overdue. During 2012 legislative efforts to pass this measure, the New Jersey Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly endorsed the Act, writing in part, “”¦the past decade has seen an expansion of the evidence showing adverse effects after chronic pesticide exposure in children. The strongest links between pesticides and health effects to children involve pediatric cancer and adverse neuro-development. However, low birth weight, preterm birth, congenital abnormalities, cognitive deficits and asthma at times are pesticide-induced.”

Children are much more sensitive than adults to pesticide exposure because they take in more of a pesticide relative to adults and have developing bodies and organ systems. Children often have more intimate exposure to pesticides through playing and hand to mouth activities. Beyond Pesticides actively documents evidence of the danger pesticides pose to children through our Pesticide Induced Diseases Database, and through fact sheets like Children and Pesticides Don’t Mix and Pesticides and Playing Fields.

Beyond the danger these chemicals pose to children is the fact that toxic pesticides are simply not necessary in order to control weeds and pests that do cosmetic damage to fields and playgrounds. While certainly many parents do not feel that it is worth trading their child’s health for an aesthetically pleasing field or landscape, the fact is that those sort of trade-offs are not necessary when grounds are managed through a natural systems approach. Natural or organic turf management starts with improving the health of the soil, and focuses on managing turf through cultural practices and natural inputs. Guided by a soil test, this approach includes practices such as correcting pH and nutrient imbalances, amending soil through compost or compost tea, and a focus on proper mowing height, aeration, overseeding, and adequate watering. It is Beyond Pesticides’ experience and the experience of states like New York, Connecticut, and communities across the country that this approach is successful when properly implemented.

If you want to get involved in efforts to protect kids at school from toxic pesticides, such as the efforts underway right now in New Jersey or Minneapolis, MN,  contact Beyond Pesticides by calling the office at 202-543-5450 or email at [email protected].

Source: NorthJersey.com, New Jersey Legislature

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

(Washington, D.C. October 26, 2016)  With the Massachusetts Attorney General forcing Bayer CropScience to end its statewide advertising containing deceptive safety claims about bee-toxic pesticides, Beyond Pesticides yesterday asked the other 49 states to do the same. In a letter to State Attorneys General, Beyond Pesticides said, “With neonicotinoid (neonic) insecticides linked to the increase in pollinator decline, we are writing to urge you, on behalf of our members in your state, to stop misleading and fraudulent advertising of these pesticide products.”

Beyond Pesticides continues, “We make this request following the settlement reached by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy with Bayer CropScience, announced today, that ends the company’s deceptive advertising practices on their neonicotinoid-containing lawn and garden products.”

Bayer agreed to change its advertising practices, so that the neonic-containing lawn and garden products are no longer misrepresented by false safety claims. This landmark settlement, filed under the state’s Consumer Protection Act, is believed to be the first time any major pesticide company has agreed to a court order to address alleged false advertising regarding risks posed by neonic products to honey and native bees, and other pollinator species.  The lawn and garden products subject to the settlement, which include Bayer Advanced ^® All-in-One Rose and Flower Care, Bayer Advanced ^® 12 Month Tree & Shrub Protect and Feed II, and Bayer Advanced ^® Season Long Grub Control Plus Turf Revitalizer, contain the active ingredients imidacloprid and/or clothianidin, both neonics.

In addition, according to the Massachusetts AG, Bayer is paying the Commonwealth $75,000 to settle these claims against the company. Attorney General Healy stated that, “This company was misleading consumers with deceptive claims, including falsely advertising its products as akin to giving ”˜a daily vitamin’ to plants, when, in fact, the pesticides are highly toxic to honey bees and other pollinators in the environment. This groundbreaking settlement will promote truth in advertising for consumer products that expose bees to harmful pesticides and will increase awareness about the risks these pesticides pose to bees and other pollinators essential for food production.”

Neonics are a class of insecticides with a common mode of action that affects the central nervous system of insects. There is extensive evidence that neonic pesticides play a major role in recent pollinator declines. Neonics decrease learning, foraging and navigational ability of bees, as well as increase their vulnerability to pathogens and parasites as a result of the suppression of bee immune systems. In addition to toxicity to bees, neonics have been shown to also adversely affect birds, aquatic organisms, and biodiversity, while contaminating soil and waterways. They are persistent in the environment and, because they are systemic, translocate throughout the plant and are expressed in the pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets, causing indiscriminate poisoning of wildlife.

Given the shortcomings in federal oversight of misleading labeling claims and the use of neonicotinoids, Beyond Pesticides asked State Attorney General  offices take action to mitigate these concerns. With growing concerns surrounding the detrimental role that neonics have on pollinator health, we applaud the actions taken by the Massachusetts Attorney General and urge other states to assess the pesticide labeling practices and take appropriate action. Farm, beekeeper, and environmental groups, including Beyond Pesticides, have urged EPA to follow the lead of the European Union and restrict neonics.

Download a copy of the letter here: http://bit.ly/NeonicAGLetter.

See a copy of our  press release here.

Read the Massachusetts Attorney General’s press release here.

See the science on neonicotinoids and other efforts to protect pollinators from pesticides.

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 26, 2016) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has launched a criminal investigation at several locations in Missouri into the illegal spraying this summer of the herbicide dicamba. EPA’s investigation is ongoing and stems from widespread complaints of damage to various crops across Missouri and several other states in the Midwest and Southeast. Dicamba, a widely used herbicide, has had frequent problems with drift and subsequent crop injury. Many suspect that  farmers who planted the new dicamba-tolerant genetically engineered (GE) seeds in the region, when faced with a proliferation of pigweed this year, illegally sprayed dicamba across their fields, leading to drift and off-site crop damage to other farmers. While USDA has deregulated (approved) dicamba-tolerant crops, EPA is expected to but has not yet registered a formulations of dicamba for use on GE crops. Dicamba is highly volatile and prone to drift.

In a statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, EPA’s Region 7 office said the Missouri Department of Agriculture received more than 100 complaints since June 22, 2016. The complaints allege damage to more than 41,000 acres of soybeans, and other crops including peaches, tomatoes, watermelons, cantaloupe, rice, purple-hull peas, peanuts, cotton and alfalfa; as well as to residential gardens, trees and shrubs. More than 25 similar complaints were lodged with the Arkansas Department of Agriculture’s Plant Board, with most coming from Mississippi and Craighead counties in northeast Arkansas. Those complaints are being looked into by plant board investigators.

In its statement, EPA said officials served federal search warrants during the week of Oct. 10 at “several locations in Cape Girardeau, Dunklin, New Madrid and Stoddard counties” of Missouri. The warrants were issued by a U.S. magistrate judge in Cape Girardeau “for the expressed purpose of gathering evidence of possible violations” of federal law governing the use of herbicides and regarding “other federal crimes,” according to the statement.

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the dicamba-tolerant cotton, soybean and corn seed as a method to control glyphosate-resistant “superweeds,” which have spread as a result of the use of Roundup Ready on GE herbicide-tolerant crops. However, EPA has not yet approved the new dicamba product formulation for use on the new dicamba-tolerant crops. Current allowable uses for dicamba products are restricted to pre-plant and post-harvest burndown applications. The new formulation of dicamba is said to be lower in volatility than the other versions of dicamba. However, data on this has not been made public for peer review, and the validity of these claims remain unsubstantiated. Monsanto, the manufacturer of these GE seeds,  told NPR  that it made clear to farmers that they could not spray dicamba on its dicamba-tolerant crops.

Pesticide drift is an inevitable problem of pesticide application, and dicamba drift and subsequent crop injury to sensitive broadleaf crops has been a frequent problem. Abnormal leaf growth, floral development, reduced yield, and reduced quality have all been observed from dicamba drift.  A  study published by Pennsylvania State scientists  in late 2015 found dicamba drift was “frequently responsible for sublethal, off-target damage” to plants and insects. Researchers found that even very low rates of dicamba herbicide exposure negatively affected plant flowering, and thus insect pollination. Historically, to mitigate against potential risks from pesticide drift EPA has required buffer zones and application restrictions. However, these have not been sufficient to alleviate off-site crop damage and environmental contamination. Additionally, as demonstrated with these incidents, there are challenges with pesticide product label compliance.

The use of other highly volatile herbicides like 2,4-D on GE crops also presents growing pesticide drift concerns in light of new 2,4-D tolerant GE varieties. With lawmakers  contemplating increasing fines  on illegal pesticide applications in Missouri, ultimately, this problem will need to be addressed on a more comprehensive scale, as conventional farmers will need to diversify the crops they plant and implement other cultural practices to deter weeds, including using cover crops, crop rotation, and intercropping. Food distribution systems will also need to shift to accommodate greater diversity in farmer fields.  Organic agriculture  represents a time-tested approach to managing weeds and avoiding resistance problems that plague GE cropping systems. With organic, the use of toxic synthetic herbicides and GE seeds is prohibited, and farmers must craft an organic system plan aimed at improving soil health and managing pests and weeds should they arise.

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

Source: Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette  

(Beyond Pesticides, October 25, 2016) Last week, a study,  Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: a population-based disease burden and cost analysis,  published in The Lancet  journal, concludes  that exposure to pesticides and other chemicals found in common household items, such as toys, makeup and detergent, costs the U.S. more than $340 billion annually in  health care costs and lost wages. The chemicals in question, endocrine disruptors (EDCs), interfere with the body’s hormone system, which can lead to a variety of health problems.

According to Environmental Health News, the researchers estimate the costs by looking at exposure data and then projecting 15 medical conditions that are linked to endocrine disruptors and their associated health costs and lost wages. The findings came from calculations made by the Endocrine Society, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Environment Program. A group of flame retardant chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) were the worst offenders in the U.S., accounting for nearly two-thirds of estimated health problems. These chemicals were estimated to annually cause about 11 million lost IQ points and 43,000 additional cases of intellectual disability, costing around $268 billion. Pesticide exposure, the second most costly chemical group in the U.S., causes an estimated 1.8 million lost IQ points and another 7,500 intellectual disability cases annual, with an estimated cost of $44.7 billion.

Endocrine disruptors work either by mimicking naturally produced hormones, blocking hormone receptors in cells, or affecting the transport, synthesis, metabolism or excretion of hormones. These impacts can result in devastating effects on one’s health, including behavioral and learning disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), birth defects, obesity, early puberty, infertility, cardiovascular disease, and childhood and adult cancers. Nearly 100 percent of people have detectable amounts of EDCs in their bodies, according to the introductory guide to EDCs published by the Endocrine Society and IPEN.

According to Environmental Health News, the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, not surprisingly slammed the study, saying the research was speculative and the conclusions were based off of “cherry-picked” data. Leonardo Trasande, M.D.,  associate professor and researcher at the NYU School of Medicine, who is also the senior author of the study, countered that  the estimates were actually on the conservative side. Researchers calculated the health-related costs from less than 5% of known endocrine disrupting chemicals. Philippe Grandjean, MD, a professor at Harvard’s School of Public Health, commented on the study, saying, “Of course it would be great to know more, but my prediction is that the calculated costs to society will increase substantially once we get better documentation on … additional substances and additional adverse effects.”

Previous studies have shown that endocrine disrupting chemicals and other pesticides place a large burden of cost on the public through resulting health effects. In 2015, Dr. Grandjean co-authored a study showing that exposure to EDCs results in approximately € 150 billion ($162 billion) in health care costs in the European Union each year. The analysis found (with 70-100% probability) that each year in Europe, 13 million IQ points are lost due to prenatal organophosphate exposure (pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and malathion), and 59,300 additional cases of intellectual disability are caused. Pesticides were found to be the most costly of the EDCs analyzed, accounting for € 120 billion ($130 billion) of the estimated € 150 billion ($162 billion) in healthcare expenditures each year. In July 2016, a study was released that showed lower IQ (intelligence quotient) in children born to mothers who during their pregnancy were living in close proximity to chemical-intensive agricultural lands where organophosphate pesticides were used. The researchers estimated that each one point decrease in IQ decreases worker productivity by approximately 2%, and reduces lifetime earnings of $18,000 (in 2005 market standards).

Ultimately, the widespread adoption of  organic management  is necessary to protect consumers in the long-term. While some may argue that organic is too expensive, the simple fact is that chemical companies are able to externalize the social cost of their products in the form of healthcare costs to consumers, and numerous other adverse effects. Consumers should not feel upset over paying the higher cost. In essence, organic shoppers are paying more to protect their health, the environment where the food is grown, the farmworkers that grow the food, the soil the food is growth in, and the pollinators and other wildlife in the area. If consumers paid the true cost of conventional food production, prices for conventionally grown goods would certainly be more expensive than organic products, which are certified through a process that protects human health and the environment. For the real story on the affordability of organic food, see our article here.

As we encourage more farmers to move toward organic, and more consumers to purchase organic foods, we must fight to keep organic strong. Consumers and producers can help maintain the integrity of the organic label, and thus protect the food we eat as well as the environment, by reading more about the issues. Currently, the National Organic Standards Board is accepting comments to protect organic standards until October 26. Click here to see the issues! For more information on the benefits of purchasing organic foods, see Beyond Pesticides’ Eating with a Conscience database, which documents the impacts on the environment and farmworkers of the toxic chemicals used in conventional agriculture.

Source: Environmental Health News

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 24, 2016) Systemic neonicotinoid (neonic) exposure is associated with reductions in colony size and changes in foraging behavior, according to a recent field study done by a team of scientists at Imperial College London. The senior author of the study, Richard Gill, Ph.D., stated that when neonicotinoid “exposure is relatively persistent and combined with other stressors associated with land use change, they could have detrimental effects at the colony level.”

The study, Impact of controlled neonicotinoid exposure on bumblebees in a realistic field setting, assesses the effect of exposure to the neonic, clothianidin, on bumblebee foraging patterns and colony size. Clothianidin was given to 20 buff-tailed bumblebee colonies for five-weeks in a sugar solution at a concentration of 5 parts per billion, an environmentally relevant level of the pesticide. A bumblebee colony census was done before and after the field experiment, where the number of eggs, larvae, pupae, and workers bees were recorded along with the wax and pollen stores in the colony. The researchers found that the clothianidin treated colonies had fewer workers, drones and reproductive female bees compared to the colonies with no exposure. These data add to the growing body of research on sub-lethal effects, which must be considered when looking at the effects of pesticides on non-target organisms.

This study adds to the body of science that has  examined the effects of neonic exposure to  bee colonies under field conditions. However, neonic  pesticides  have long been identified as a major culprit in bee decline by independent scientists and beekeepers, yet chemical manufacturers like Bayer and Syngenta have focused on  other issues such as the varroa mite. As Beyond Pesticides wrote in the  2014 issue of  Pesticides and You, the issue of pollinator decline is  No Longer a Big Mystery, and urgent action is needed now to protect pollinators from these toxic pesticides.

Neonics are associated with  decreased learning,  foraging  and navigational ability, as well as increased vulnerability to pathogens and parasites as a result of suppressed bee immune systems. In addition to toxicity to bees, pesticides like neonicotinoids have been shown to also adversely affect  birds,  aquatic organisms and contaminate soil  and waterways, and  overall biodiversity.

These findings follow on the recent decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to add a group of bees to the Endangered Species List. FWS published a final rule in early October that declares seven species of yellow-faced bees that are native to Hawaii as endangered. This announcement follows the FWS’s proposed listing of the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). FWS says that it needs additional time to identify specific areas to be designated as critical habitat for the endangered bees. Further, though FWS has identified many threats to bees, including habitat loss and degradation due to urbanization, and other human activities, the final rule does not specifically point to pesticides. However, there is an overwhelming number  of research studies  demonstrating that neonicotinoid insecticides, working either individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators.

Over the past decade,  numerous studies  have illuminated the negative effect that  neonics have on different pollinator species, but until now little research has been performed on the chemicals’ long-term impacts. The results of this recent study provide  additional  evidence that links the sublethal impacts of neonic exposure and large-scale population extinctions of wild bee species.

Despite limited  action in the United States by federal agencies and Congress to discontinue the use of neonicotinoid insecticides and toxic pesticides in general, consumers and advocates around the country can create safe pollinator habitat and encourage local governments to do the same. Ultimately, the widespread adoption of”¯organic management”¯is necessary to protect pollinators and the environment in the long-term. Farms or other land areas that are managed with chemical-intensive practices turn habitat into pollinator killing fields.

Beyond Pesticides has long sought a broad-scale marketplace transition to organic practices that prohibits the use of toxic synthetic pesticides by law and encourages a systems-based approach that is protective of health and the environment.”¯For information on growing plants to protect pollinators, see our  Pollinator-Friendly Seeds and Nursery Directory. Use the  Bee Protective Habitat Guide  to plant a pollinator garden suited for your region, and consider  seeding white clover into your lawn. You can also declare your garden, yard, park or other space as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly. Sign the pledge today!   More information on the adverse effects neonics can be found in the Beyond Pesticides’ report”¯Cultivating Plants that Poison.

Source: Science Daily, Imperial College London

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 21, 2016) Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) postponed  a long-planned Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) on the carcinogenicity of the widely used herbicide glyphosate due to “recent changes in the availability of experts for the peer review panel.”  However, as veteran journalist, formerly with Reuters, Carey Gillam reports in the Huffington Post, the move was likely the result of a letter industry front group CropLife America sent to EPA just days before the postponement, challenging the bias of certain experts on the panel. Croplife America is a national trade association that represents manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of pesticides, and has a vested interest in tamping down consumer concerns over glyphosate’s carcinogenicity.

CropLife’s letter focuses in on two experts that were set to present in front of the EPA panel, Peter Infante, Dr.PH., and Kenneth Portier, PhD. CropLife writes that Dr. Infante will “reflexively discount any and all industry sponsored studies”¦” and indicates that his bias should preclude him from participation in the SAP. The group also asserts that Dr. Portier, who despite admission that “he has not previously testified against or otherwise expressed the patent bias against pesticide manufacturers,” should not be completely disqualified from participation, but somehow vetted and confirmed by EPA that he will not approach the issue without preformed conclusions.

Biographies of members of the EPA glyphosate SAP cancer panel are available here and speak largely for themselves. According to  Dr. Infante’s biography, which includes robust experience in government safety programs, “He has served as an expert consultant in epidemiology for: the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Report on Carcinogens (RoC); for working groups of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee; and as an expert on cancer risk from asbestos exposure for the World Trade Organization (WTO).”  Despite this objectively deep experience, CropLife was concerned that he would be the only epidemiologist and would not emphasize studies the industry itself has put out about the safety of glyphosate.

Dr. Portier is the Vice President of the Statistics and Evaluation Center at the American Cancer Society, and, “has participated in over 60 FIFRA-SAP meetings since 1999 and five SAB science review panels. In addition, Dr. Portier has served on expert and advisory panels for the National Institutes   of   Health   (NIH),   National   Institute   of   Environmental   Health   Sciences   (NIEHS),   the   National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the World Health Organization Food and Agriculture Organization   (WHO/FAO) in Geneva, Switzerland.” However, CropLife believes Dr. Portier would not be an objective panel member because his brother is “a noted and vehement anti-glyphosate activist.”

These attacks on independent scientists, and  the American Cancer Society, represent a new low for the pesticide industry. EPA’s quick turnaround, apparently in response to CropLife criticims, postponed a meeting less than a week before it was to take place, for which plane tickets were purchased and was planned for months in advance, raises serious concerns that advocates say warrant an independent investigation on the objectivity of EPA’s approach to this issue.

Beyond Pesticides is concerned about what it views as incessant industry driven attacks on independent and government scientists.  In 2015, one of the top entomologists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)  filed a whistleblower complaint  against a  federal agency, citing unprofessional retaliation following the publication of a  study  linking neonicotinoid insecticides to the decline of monarch butterflies. Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D., former senior research entomologist and lab supervisor for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in South Dakota, faced suspension for publishing research deemed “sensitive” by his USDA superior, underscoring why legal protections for government scientists are sorely needed.

Glyphosate, which is produced and sold as Roundup^TM  by Monsanto, has been touted by industry and EPA as a “low toxicity” chemical, “safer” than other pesticides. It is widely used in food production and on lawns, gardens, parks, and children’s playing fields. In 2015, the IARC classified glyphosate as a Group 2A “probable” carcinogen. According to IARC’s 2015 findings, Group 2A means that the chemical is probably carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. IARC considered the findings from a prior EPA Scientific Advisory Panel report, along with several recent studies in making its conclusion. The international organization also noted that glyphosate caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells. Further, epidemiologic studies have found that exposure to glyphosate is significantly associated with an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL).

According another  review, Glyphosate pathways to modern disease V: Amino acid analogue of glycine in diverse proteins, conducted by independent scientists Anthony Samsel, Ph.D. and Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), glyphosate acts as a glycine analogue that  incorporates into peptides during protein synthesis. In this process, it alters a number of proteins that depend on conserved glycine for proper function. According to the authors, glyphosate substitution for glycine correlates with  several diseases, including diabetes, obesity, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and Parkinson’s disease, among others.

EPA indicated to the Huffington Post that it was “working to reschedule as soon as possible.” In order to ensure an outcome based on fact, and not industry spin, it is critical that EPA not continue to cave to industry pressure on this important issue. For more information about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity, see Beyond Pesticides fact sheet on glyphosate, or the 2015 article on the IARC decision in Pesticides and You, our quarterly newsletter.

Source: Huffington Post, EPA

(Beyond Pesticides, October 20, 2016) Researchers at the University of Western Australia (UWA) and Murdoch University recently released a study whose findings show that levels of pesticides in breast milk have dropped significantly over the past forty years, though some major concerns remain. Published in the international journal Chemosphere, the research shows a 42-fold decrease in levels of pesticides detected in breast milk, and ties the reduction to government efforts to prohibit persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in Australia, which has lead to decreased exposure over time. Led by UWA’s internationally renowned human lactation researcher Emeritus Professor Peter Hartmann, Dr. Donna Geddes and Murdoch’s Associate Professor Robert Trengove, the study is a testament to the positive impact banning pesticides can have on the health of individuals, especially vulnerable populations like infants, but also shows that there is a long way to go before our bodies are void of any bioaccumulated toxic residues.

Researchers often study breast milk because it can bioconcentrate, or accumulate, persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Multiple studies on breast milk have been performed throughout the years, many of them confirming the fact that common toxic chemicals, such as glyphosate and triclosan, build up in our bodies over time. Most people are unaware that they carry chemical compounds in their bodies, a natural phenomenon dubbed chemical “body burden.” At any given time, hundreds of chemicals can be found in blood, urine, breast milk and even umbilical cord blood. Many of these chemicals enter our bodies through the foods we eat or drink, products we put on our skin and air we breathe. Before birth, people normally carry a body burden inherited from their mothers. Scientists believe the typical human being hosts close to 500 chemicals in various compartments in the body, mostly in fatty tissue. Many chemicals are broken down in our bodies and their metabolites are eliminated, but others linger in bodies for a lifetime and can increase the  risk of  certain diseases, such as  cancer  and  Parkinson’s disease.

For this study, researchers recruited 40 breastfeeding mothers and performed mass spectrometry tests to determine the levels at which their human milk (HM) showed the presence of 88 different pesticides. While traditional POPs, such as organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids, were not detected in HM, the study revealed that 87.5% of mothers tested positive for dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), the toxic chemical dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane’s (DDT)’s major metabolite. DDT was banned in the U.S. in 1972, following a massive environmental movement spurred by Rachel Carson’s  Silent Spring, which documents the adverse environmental effects resulting from the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Despite the fact that DDT was banned in the U.S. 43 years ago, concentrations of DDE have remained alarmingly high in many ecosystems, a fact supported by the prevalence of DDE in HM reported in this study.

Aside from the presence of DDE, the study does bring with it some positive findings, as researches point out that infants how have a daily intake of POPs 59-times below the amount that is considered safe. “It’s really good news,” said Professor Hartmann, Ph.D., while speaking to the problematic effects that  the presence of pesticides can have on the growth and development of babies, “some of these compounds do mimic some of the body’s hormones”¦ so it is a bit of a problem if they are at high levels.” He also reiterated that his research showed that legislation to ban pesticides in the 1970’s has had positive impacts on health. “The restriction of sale of these pesticides has had an enormous effect in bringing the levels down to very good levels,” he said.

The study specifically looks to the banning of POPs in the 1970’s to explain the reduction in pesticides found in breast milk. Chemicals such as organochlorine pesticides, organophosphate pesticides, pyrethroids and carbamate pesticide were classified as persistent organic pollutants because they remain for long periods of time in the environment, eventually making their way up food chains, accumulating in the fatty tissues and animals and humans. Their  legacy of poisoning the environment  has been well documented, despite being banned for decades. Recent studies have linked these POPs to  hormonal disturbances,  abnormal sperm development,  cancer,  diabetes,  obesity  and  environmental contamination.

To find out more about the impacts of pesticides on your health, please visit our Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. You can also support organic food practices that reduce or eliminate our reliance on toxic pesticides by Eating with a Conscience.

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

Source: University of Western Australia

(Beyond Pesticides, October 19, 2016) Reckitt Benckiser, the company that fought tooth and nail to keep its highly toxic d-CON ® anticoagulant rodenticides on the market in the U.S., has recently issued an apology for another product of theirs that  is responsible for the deaths of pregnant women and children in Korea: humidifier disinfectants. According to The Wall Street Journal, 189 deaths and 506 injuries from humidifier disinfectants, primarily Reckitt Benckiser’s humidifier disinfectant, Oxy Sac Sac (Oxy). The main ingredient in the sanitizers found to be toxic is polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate, or PHMG.

In a statement on Wednesday, September 21, Reckitt Benckiser CEO Rakesh Kapoor offered his “deepest sympathy” for “the pain and the irreparable damage suffered by many families.” The apology was made during a visit with Oxy victims and  families, as well as representatives of the Korean National Assembly Special Committee at the Company’s headquarters in Slough, UK.

Hazards associated with the humidifier disinfectants were first discovered in 2011 when seven pregnant women were hospitalized with acute respiratory disease, resulting in four deaths from  lung failure. Korean Center for Disease Control (KCDC) led an investigation that found that the chemicals used to clean humidifiers were to blame, and the Korean government recalled six humidifier disinfectant products from the market nationwide, while recommending against the use of other similar products and ordered a voluntary recall in 2011.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the company commissioned Seoul National University, Hoseo University and Korea Conformity Laboratories to test its humidifier disinfectant, and privately hired two researchers from the universities as consultants. The company then purportedly rejected test results showing its products were unsafe, bribed the researchers to create favorable results and ignored toxicity warnings about its product in 2000, according to the Journal. Former CEOs and officials at Reckitt Benckiser Korea were charged in May and fined for and evading necessary toxicity tests before introducing it to market in South Korea in 2001, falsely advertising their product as “safe for humans.”

Reckitt Benckiser’s humidifier disinfectants are not sold outside of South Korea, however the multi-national company has a history of selling products that are known to be hazardous to children. In the U.S., Reckitt Benckiser, well known as the manufacturer of d-CON mouse and rat control products, refused to adopt EPA safety standards despite known health and safety risks.

Between 1993 and 2008, the American Association of Poison Control Centers logged somewhere in the range of 12,000 to 15,000 reports of rat and mouse poison exposures each year for children under the age of six. These numbers and other concerns about pet and non-target wildlife exposures spurred EPA to renew its efforts to establish better protections for children and the environment. Children are particularly susceptible to these risks because they play on floors and explore by putting items in their mouths, which can include loose rat poisons like d-CON.

The company refused to abide by EPA’s 2013 cancellation order of 12 of its products for not meeting statutory risk mitigation measures established by the agency in 2008. These measures required that products be sold in bait stations and secured bait forms, instead of loose baits that children can more readily access, and not contain the most toxic and persistent active ingredients.

The company challenged EPA’s decision keeping products on shelves for over one year, even suing the state of California for enacting EPA’s order to remove the products from shelves. This was the first time in more than 20 years that a company declined to implement EPA risk mitigation measures for pesticide products. Eventually, Reckitt Benckiser agreed to phase out production of the products under question in June 2014, nearly eight years after EPA warned about the threats to children’s health, however existing stocks may continue to be sold at retail stores.

While Reckitt-Benckiser outlined a compensation plan to the victims and their family members in South Korea, and has vowed to review its safety process, no plans to remove the products from market have been identified. Meanwhile, major retailers in South Korea have stopped selling Reckitt Benckiser products, which also includes such popular brands as Durex condoms, Air Wick and Lysol. For more information, including victim’s stories and a timeline of the history of Reckitt Benckiser’s hazardous humidifier disinfectant in South Korea, see the Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational and Environmental Victims (ANROEV), a coalition of victims’ groups, trade unions and other labor groups across Asia, committed to the rights of Victims and for overall improvement of health and safety at the workplace.

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

Sources: Wall Street Journal, Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational and Environmental Victims (ANROEV) and The Korea Herald

Photo Source:  Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational and Environmental Victims (ANROEV)

(Beyond Pesticides, October 18, 2016) A Wisconsin family is speaking out against groundwater contamination after their son fell ill two years ago, prompting them to test their well water. The test results found the water contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides, most notably the weed killer atrazine, which has been banned in their area for 20 years. Atrazine has been registered for use since 1958. Although many residential turf grass uses of the chemical have been eliminated voluntarily, homeowner uses do persist. The chemical has been linked to human health impacts such as childhood cancer, and rare birth defects, including gastroschisis, and choanal atresia.

According to Minnpost, in the spring of 2014, Jacob, son of Doug and Dawn Reeves, fell mysteriously ill. His body became swollen and he developed an unusual rash. He was finally diagnosed with juvenile dermatomyositis, a rare inflammatory disease that affects the muscles, skin and blood vessels. The cause of the disease is unknown, so the Reeves family began their own hunt as to why Jacob became sick. When they received the test results from Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, it showed that their well contained atrazine at twice the state and federal drinking water health standard. Follow up testing by the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) found 8.2 parts per billion of atrazine — almost triple the state health standard.

While there is currently no link between atrazine exposure and juvenile dermatomyositis, the DATCP warned in a letter that, “Long-term exposure to atrazine may cause a variety of health problems, including weight loss, heart damage and muscle spasms.” Testing also revealed 19.2 parts per million of nitrate, which is almost double the state health standard of 10ppm. Nitrate is a common groundwater contaminant that is sourced mainly from chemical fertilizers and animal waste, and has been linked to birth defects, cancers and thyroid problems.

Wisconsin regulators have already taken steps to mitigate the effects of atrazine. In 1991, the state created a rule that allowed DATCP to set maximum application rates and even prohibit the use of atrazine in certain areas. The last update was in 2011, with 101 prohibition areas covering 1.1 million acres. Unfortunately for the Reeves family, these restrictions were not enough. Their well was poisoned even though they are in the middle of a prohibition zone where atrazine use is banned. The Reeves family has installed filtration systems to remove the contaminants, but are worried about other chemicals.

Stan Senger, DATCP’s environmental quality section chief, expressed similar concerns. “My biggest concerns are in the cocktail of very low impacts of pesticides and their metabolites that are showing up in wells,” Mr. Senger said to Minnpost. “So you’ll find four or five of these pesticide components in a water sample, and you don’t know what to tell the homeowners.” Joanna Ory, a USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture pre-doctoral fellow at the University of California-Santa Cruz, who studied Wisconsin’s approach to atrazine, stated to Minnpost that, “There may be negative synergistic effects if groundwater contains a ”˜chemical soup’ of pesticides.”

There is a growing body of research on the interactive effects of pesticides on human health and the environment. A 2002  study by Warren Porter, PhD., professor of zoology and environmental toxicology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, examined the effect of fetal exposures to a mixture of 2,4-D, mecoprop, and dicamba exposure ””frequently used in lawn products like Weed B Gone Max and Trillion, and in conventional agriculture ””on the mother’s ability to successfully bring young to birth and weaning. Researchers looked at pesticide concentrations diluted to levels that are considered “safe” by EPA and found that it is capable of inducing abortions and resorptions of fetuses at very low parts per billion. The greatest effect was at the lowest dose. For more information on pesticide synergy, see our 2004 article, “Synergy: The Big Unknowns of Pesticide Exposure.”

Drinking water treatment plans and filtration systems are a short-term, band-aid option to a problem that is persistent and must be addressed through preventive, long-term solutions. Beyond Pesticides has long supported “feed-the-soil” approaches to all types of landscape management. Understanding the role of healthy soils in creating healthy landscapes and plants, Beyond Pesticides promotes a systems approach that centers on management of soil health and proper fertilization that eliminates synthetic fertilizers and focuses on building the soil food web and nurturing soil microorganisms.

Organic farming and land management uses natural, less soluble sources of nitrogen, phosphorous and magnesium; including cover crops, compost, manure and mineralized rock, in order to promote increases in soil organic matter and a healthy soil structure. Healthy soil structure allows water to infiltrate the ground slowly, rather than escaping across the surface and carrying soil particles, nutrients, and other inputs with it. Also, it allows plants to establish vibrant root systems that resist erosion. For more details, see Beyond Pesticides fact sheet  Organic Land Management and the Protection of Water Quality.

Source: Minnpost

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 17, 2016) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed its plan last Friday to register the toxic chemical sulfoxaflor, in the face of  overwhelming evidence that it negatively affects bee populations. This decision is the final result of a long-fought legal battle over the chemical’s registration, spearheaded by beekeepers and public health organizations concerned with what has been identified as EPA’s inadequate and flawed pesticide review processes. The agency claims that amendments made to the original registration, such as reducing the number  of crops for which use is permitted or only allowing post-bloom applications, will protect pollinators. However, scientific studies have shown that there is no way to fully limit exposure to bees, especially native species that exist naturally in the environment, given that the chemical, being systemic, is found in pollen, nectar, and guttation droplets. Given the evidence of harm related to sulfoxaflor’s use, as well as its demonstrated lack of need, advocates maintain that the agency’s decision to issue an amended registration violates its  duty to protect human health and the environment.

Sulfoxaflor’s initial 2013 registration was challenged by beekeepers and subsequently vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals due to overwhelming risks to bees and EPA’s inadequate review of the data. Last September, the  Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unequivocally rejected  EPA’s registration of sulfoxaflor. The Court concluded that EPA violated federal law when it approved sulfoxaflor without reliable studies regarding the impact that the insecticide may  have on honey bee colonies. By vacating EPA’s unconditional registration of the chemical, sulfoxaflor could no longer be used in the U.S. This decision was issued, at least in part, as a response to a  suit filed by beekeepers challenging EPA’s initial registration of sulfoxaflor, which cited the insecticide’s threat to bees and beekeeping. The case was  Pollinator Stewardship Council, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, American Beekeeping Federation, Thomas Smith, Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson v. U.S. EPA  (9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals,”¯No. 13-7234). As a result of this favorable holding, a similar lawsuit was filed by European beekeepers, who asked the European Court of Justice to take the same action.

Sulfoxaflor, the chemical at issue, is a relatively new active ingredient, registered in 2013, whose mode of action is similar to that of neonicotinoid pesticides. Even though it has not been classified as a neonicotinoid, it elicits similar neurological responses in honey bees, with many believing that sulfoxaflor is the new generation of neonicotinoid. Neonicotinoids, as well as  sulfoxaflor, are “systemic” insecticides, which means that they are applied to plants, they are absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen, and nectar. Sulfoxaflor was previously registered in the U.S. for use on vegetables, fruits, barley, canola, ornamentals, soybeans, wheat and others, but the amended registration removes citrus, cotton, cucurbits, soybeans and strawberries from that list. This reduction, though aimed at protecting pollinators, comes up short. Like nenonicotinoids, sulfloxoflor has a long half-life and persists in soil, where it is  taken up by growing plants, presenting itself in the nectar and pollen that pollinators rely on for food. Because it can last in the environment into the next growing season, efforts to protect pollinators by mitigating measures, such as not spraying while crops are in bloom, do not do enough to protect bees.

In an effort to stop the amended registration from going through, public comments were submitted by concerned beekeepers and environmental advocacy groups, like Beyond Pesticides, that stated that approval of a pesticide highly toxic to bees would”¯only exacerbate the problems”¯faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations. However, EPA dismissed these concerns and instead pointed to a need for sulfoxaflor by industry and agriculture groups for justification, claiming they need it to control insects no longer being controlled by increasingly ineffective pesticide technologies. The comment period closed earlier this summer, and the recently issued amended registration indicates that the concerns of beekeepers and environmental groups were not addressed, as EPA believes these restrictions will “practically eliminate exposure to bees on the field, which reduces the risk to bees below EPA’s level of concern such that no additional data requirements are triggered,” despite comments submitted showing evidence to the contrary.

Honey bees and wild bees have been suffering elevated population declines over the last few years. A recent government-sponsored survey reports that U.S. beekeepers  lost  44 percent of their honey bee colonies  between April 2015 and April 2016, one of the highest recorded losses.  A  recently published study  by researchers at Purdue University  found that honey bees collect most of their pollen from non-crop plants that are frequently contaminated with a wide range of pesticides. Numerous pesticides, including sulfoxaflor, neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, and fungicides are highly toxic to honey bees and have a range of effects including impacts on learning behavior, foraging, reproduction and queen production, as well as impairing bee immune systems making them more susceptible to parasites and disease.

In light of the  shortcomings of federal action”¯to protect these beneficial  organisms,  pollinators need pesticide-free habitat  throughout communities. You can declare your garden, yard, park or other space as pesticide-free and pollinator friendly. It does not matter how large or small your pledge is, as long as you contribute to the creation of safe pollinator habitat.”¯Sign the pledge today! Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? The”¯Bee Protective Habitat Guide”¯can tell you which native plants are right for your region. For more information on what you can do, visit our  BEE Protective  page.

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

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(Beyond Pesticides, October 14, 2016) A recent study has shown that the interaction between pesticides, tillage and soil fertilization can have an effect on soil organisms. The study demonstrates that simple evaluations of pesticide exposure on single organisms does not give a complete picture of pesticide risk, and the authors of the study conclude that a more realistic risk assessment was needed to fully encompass the complex factors that can influence the effects of pesticides.

The study, titled Pesticide Interactions with Tillage and N Source, Effects on fauna, microoganisms and selected ecosystem services, monitored soil biota during two cropping seasons of winter wheat. The researchers studied pesticide effects in both moldboard plowed soil and directly seeded (no-till) soil. Either mineral fertilizer or cattle slurry was applied to the soil, along with either a fungicide, an insecticide, or both. Following the application of pesticides in the spring, and again after the winter wheat harvest in September, researchers studied how the populations of earthworms, springtails, mites and microbial life were affected. Researchers observed a negative effect due to pesticide treatment on mites, and generally found that all taxonomic groups were affected negatively, especially following insecticide treatment.

When looking at the effects of direct seeding versus plowed, and the addition of cattle slurry versus mineral fertilizer, researchers found that there was a higher population of soil biota in the soil under direct seeding versus plowed soil, and a positive effect from the addition of cattle slurry as opposed to the mineral fertilizer. Pesticide effects on soil organisms were also examined after the incubation of soil columns. Researchers found that soil biota populations were greater in the soil that had been directly seeded compared to plowed soil.

According to the conclusion of the study, “This project demonstrated a complex interaction between management factors that should be considered in risk assessments, for example by supplementing traditions dose-response tests with more realistic test systems that can also take indirect effects into account. Negative effects of pesticides on populations occurred in this project mainly at highly elevated doses, but also sublethal effects, and changes in species composition, are important, as loss of biodiversity can reduce the robustness of cropping systems towards, e.g., climate change.”

Other studies have demonstrated the detrimental effects that a wide range of pesticides can have on earthworms and other soil biota. A 2015 study demonstrated that glyphosate, the controversial and toxic active ingredient in Roundup, reduces activity and reproduction in two species of earthworms and increases soil nutrient concentrations to dangerous levels. Another study on worms found that chronic and/or acute exposure to glyphosate and/or mancozeb promotes neurodegeneration in GABAergic and DAergic neurons in Caenorhabditis elegans, a type of roundworm. In 2014, researchers also found that earthworms exposed to fungicides in conventionally farmed soil are at a stark disadvantage to worms in land managed organically. Earthworms exposed to the fungicide epoxiconazole  are able to detoxify the chemical, but gain half as much weight as worms from an organic farm, where their population is also 2 to 3 times higher.

Soil biota is  essential to ecosystem functioning because it  breaks down organic matter, enables chemical elements to be reused, and fixes  nitrogen, which is necessary for nutrient cycling in  the ecosystem. A study published in February 2016 reveals  that a decrease in soil biota impacts the services that healthy soil provides. The study finds that soil microbial diversity  positively relates to multi-functionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Simply put, when soil diversity is high, the soil can function more efficiently and provide a multitude of ecosystem services. Any loss in microbial diversity will likely reduce multi-functionality, negatively affecting  the services provided by soil, such as climate regulation through atmospheric carbon sequestration, fertility, and productivity. A  further decline in soil biodiversity has adverse economic  impacts as well. The European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) estimates soil organisms and their role in agricultural productivity to be worth $25 billion a year, globally.

One way to protect soil biota, other wildlife, biodiversity, and the ecosystem as a whole from the harmful effects of pesticides is to support organic agriculture over conventional, chemical-intensive farming. Beyond Pesticides supports organic agriculture as effecting good land stewardship. The pesticide reform movement, citing pesticide problems associated with chemical agriculture, from groundwater contamination and runoff to drift, views organic as the solution to this serious environmental threat. It is impossible to discuss the ecological benefits of organic agriculture without discussing the devastating effects of conventional agriculture.

Conventional, or chemical-intensive, agriculture relies on toxic pesticides that contaminate air, water, soil, and living things; organic agriculture does not allow the use of toxic pesticides. Chemical-intensive  agriculture relies on synthetic chemical fertilizers that reduce soil organic matter and contaminate waterways; organic agriculture does not permit the use of synthetic  fertilizers and relies instead on nutrient sources that tend to be less soluble and more stable in the soil, because of the expectation that healthy soil will produce microbes that  can make the nutrients naturally available over a longer period of time.

To learn more about the impacts of pesticides on wildlife (which includes soil biota), visit Beyond Pesticides’ Wildlife Page  for a  discussion of how organic systems protect  wildlife from the dangerous impacts of pesticides, encourage them to flourish, and restore the natural balance that is unable to exist in chemical-intensive  agriculture.

Source: Eurekalert

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 13, 2016) Last week, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) released new rules that allow for continued use of the toxic fumigant Telone and reduce public health protection by permitting increased usage. One of the active ingredients in the product Telone,  1,3-Dicholorpropene (1,3-D), has many documented health risks, including cancer and kidney and liver damage. While CDPR and many news outlets reported the rule change as a tightening of the restrictions, the new rules effectively increase the previous annual cap from 90,250 pounds to 136,000 pounds per township, a defined area of 6×6 miles.

According to CDPR documents, the primary revisions include: increasing the annual limit to 136,000 pounds within each pesticide township, eliminating “rollover” of unused pesticide allotments from prior years, and banning use of Telone in December, when weather conditions are especially problematic for air pollution. These new rules, which go into effect January 1, will allow for 1,3-D’s continued use in strawberry fields, vineyards, almond orchards, and other crops around California.

CDPR has been characterizing  its changes in management of 1,3-D as increasingly protective of public health in the state. In making these revisions to the rules, CDPR completed an updated risk assessment to determine the annual use limit of 1,3-D that would still maintain a minimal risk of cancer to humans. The risk assessment failed to consider synergistic effects and does not adhere to the standard of “one-in-a million risk of cancer from life-long exposure” recommended by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which ultimately enabled the increase in the annual limit of 1,3-D in crop production.

1,3-D is a federally restricted use soil fumigant, used to kill nematodes, insects, and weeds that has strong links to cancer and other serious health issues. The use of the chemical in the production of strawberries came into prominence with the forced reduction of another fumigant, methyl bromide. Scientists became concerned about methyl bromide in the 1970’s, when it was linked to serious effects on the ozone and was blamed for between 5 and 10 percent of ozone depletion. Methyl bromide is still widely used in California to grow strawberries, despite its ban under the Montreal Protocol, but it will no longer be eligible for a critical use exemption after 2016. This phasing out of methyl bromide gave rise to a new class of fumigants, which included 1,3-D, the chemical in Telone.

Telone was also the subject of a recent University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) study that found mixtures of pesticides to be more harmful than individual pesticides. The report, titled Exposure and Interaction — The Potential Health Impacts of Using Multiple Pesticides: A Case Study of Three Commonly Used Fumigants, was published by the Sustainable Technology and Policy Program, based in the UCLA School of Law and the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health. The case study looked at three commonly used fumigants — chloropicrin, Telone, and metam salts, and found that:

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

Additionally, in late September, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed a lawsuit against Dow Agrosciences LLC, Telone’s manufacturer, charging that the “chemical manufacturing giant” fails to warn communities across California about the dangers associated with wide use of the chemical Telone. The case focuses on the air pollution caused by the pesticide, as it has been found to linger in the air for multiple days after application, disproportionately impacting the rural communities, often with large minority populations, that live in the immediate vicinity. The case was filed in the State of California Alameda County Superior Court, and Dow has yet to comment or release a statement addressing the allegations against the company.

This lawsuit, reports like the Dark Side of Strawberries, and other documented hazards associated with fumigants and crop production emphasize the need to shift away from dependency on toxic chemicals and seek sustainable, organic solutions to food production and feeding families. There are less toxic ways to grow the crops that have relied on these toxic fumigants for decades that can create healthier soils and improve pollination success.

Ultimately, advocates maintain that what is needed to protect community health is a transition away from toxic pesticides toward agricultural practices that  promote soil and ecosystem health,  plant  resilience and organic compatible materials, which eliminate the need for toxic chemicals. 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 California and beyond.

Source: Los Angeles Times

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