(Beyond Pesticides, June 6, 2016) Bayer CropScience’s appeal of the cancellation of their toxic pesticide flubendiamide by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was rejected by EPA’s Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Susan Biro on Thursday, June 1. Judge Biro dismissed the complaints, saying that the agency was acting within its authority when it pulled its approval for the pesticide earlier this year after the two manufacturers, Bayer CropScience and Nichino America, failed to meet the terms laid out in a 2008 conditional registration. 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,†a loophole in which EPA allows new pesticides on the market without the full range of legally mandated toxicity tests for a full registration. Meanwhile, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency finalized its  decision to discontinue granting new conditional registrations, also on June 1.
In 2008, EPA granted Bayer a “conditional†registration for flubendiamide, a classification that allows a new pesticide to be registered and used in the field, despite outstanding data points on its toxicological impact. In this case, original data submitted to EPA by Bayer showed concern over the effect of the chemical and its breakdown product on freshwater benthic invertebrates, species such as crustaceans and aquatic insects that  live in stream sediment and provide important ecosystem services such as decomposition and nutrient cycling. In response, rather than declining to proceed with registration of the chemical, EPA negotiated a deal with Bayer to conditionally register the chemical for five  years with additional label restrictions, while it waited for more  data on the harm to benthic species.
The agency issued a Notice of Intent to Cancel (NOIC) the insecticide on March 4, finding that the company failed to comply with its conditional pesticide registration, backing EPA’s novel process to quickly cancel pesticides and upholding EPA’s ban on sales of existing flubendiamide stocks. The judge found that the agency’s actions in relation to the pesticide have all been consistent with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
As part of the additional data requirements, EPA requested a study to investigate the utility of 15 foot buffer zones (part of the new label requirements EPA assumed would mitigate hazards to benthic organisms). In a novel move, EPA’s agreement with Bayer indicated that the pesticide’s conditional registration would expire in 2013, and if additional data revealed “unreasonable adverse effects,†it would notify the  company, which would then voluntarily withdraw the chemical from the market.
Judge Biro says the agency’s arguments were essentially “unopposed†in the case, calling Bayer’s arguments untimely and unconvincing. “Petitioners do not dispute that after reviewing the data, EPA made a determination, as evidenced by its January 29, 2016 letter to them that further registration of the flubendiamide products ‘will result in unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.’â€
A Bayer spokesman, in a statement to Inside EPA, said that the order is “disappointing for supporters of science-based regulations and grower choice, but it was not unexpected, given the Judge’s prior preliminary rulings, including her decision to exclude any discussion of the scientific issues raised by EPA’s actions on flubendiamide.â€
However, since its conditional registration, studies showed that flubendiamide —which is registered for use on over 200 crops, including soybeans, almonds, tobacco, peanuts, and cotton— is toxic to aquatic organisms, breaking down into a more highly toxic substance that harms organisms important to aquatic ecosystems, especially fish. The insecticide is also persistent in the environment. According to EPA, after being informed of the agency’s findings on January 29, 2016, the manufacturers, Bayer CropScience, LP and Nichino America, Inc., were asked to submit a request for voluntary cancellation by Friday, February 5, 2016.  Bayer has rejected the request and EPA’s interpretation of the science.
But, Judge Biro in her June 1 order faulted that argument as unpersuasive, saying the conditional registration did not require EPA to pursue such a dialogue, yet evidence suggests that “EPA’s scientists did engage in a good faith dialogue.â€
“The Petitioners here are intentionally out of compliance, and have no intention of coming into compliance,†Judge Biro stated. “There is no reason to allow them to continue to sell and distribute their pesticides beyond the effective date of cancellation.â€
Yet, Bayer says that they will continue with the appeal process: “We look forward to having a careful review when the Initial Decision and the ALJ’s prior preliminary rulings are taken up by the Environmental Appeals Board, which is scheduled to issue the final EPA decision no later than July 6.â€
This incident shows that even when conditional registration data is submitted and adequately reviewed, EPA is challenged in its  effective execute of the statutory obligation to prevent unreasonable adverse effects to people and  the environment. In 2013, the Government Accountability Office scolded the agency for its conditional registration process, writing, “Specifically, EPA does not have a reliable system, such as an automated data system, to track key information related to conditional registrations, including whether companies have submitted additional data within required time frames.†A significant issue related to this problem was the handling of the conditional registration for another of Bayer’s products, neonicotinoid pesticides. Despite data showing adverse effects to honey bees, and a leaked EPA analysis indicating a field study provided by Bayer was inadequate, the agency provided the chemical clothianidin with a conditional registration. EPA later reversed its stance on the field study and provided clothianidin with a full registration after it indicated that it was able to generate enough data by combining the defunct field study with other proprietary studies Bayer conducted. Now, as part of a review of another neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, EPA is finally confirming that these chemicals harm pollinators.
Given these problems and the difficulties of removing harmful pesticides from the market, a more prudent approach to protecting environmental health would be to halt the use of conditional registrations, as the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency recently decided to do, which was also finalized June 1. Rather than provide avenues for chemical companies to game the system and poison the environment, advocates maintain that EPA should take strong action to 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 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.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
(Beyond Pesticides, June 3, 2016) Despite recent reports of continuing bee losses across the U.S., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to reevaluate the use of the bee-toxic insecticide sulfoxaflor, and is proposing an amended registration. 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.
According to the court decision, EPA skirted its own regulations when it ignored risk concerns, even with reduced maximum application rates, which EPA has done before, despite prior reprimands from the Court. The judge ruled  that additional higher Tier (Tier II) bee data was needed to fully assess risks, which EPA did not have. Thus, the court vacated sulfoxaflor’s registration. However, EPA’s new amended registration is for fewer uses and according to EPA, the proposed restrictions reduce the risk to bees below EPA’s level of concern such that no additional data requirements are triggered.
Now, EPA is proposing an amended registration, which the agency claims will be “very protective of pollinators,†to allow the chemical’s use on fewer crops than were allowed under sulfoxaflor’s initial registration. For crops that are attractive to bees, the agency will prohibit sulfoxaflor’s use before and during bloom, when EPA expects that bees will  not be present. Additional measures are being proposed to reduce spray drift. EPA is also specifically requesting public input on other proposals: a buffer zone requirement for when there is blooming vegetation bordering the treated field; and the prohibition of  tank mixing sulfoxaflor with other pesticides. EPA has stated that  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.â€
Despite these new proposed restrictions, sulfoxaflor will still be a danger to bees due to its systemic nature  —an issue EPA continually ignores or underestimates, according to beekeepers and environmental advocates. Sulfoxaflor is similar to that of neonicotinoid pesticides —it acts on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) in insects, and like neonicotinoids, it is a “systemic†insecticide, which means that when applied to plants, it is absorbed and distributed throughout the plant, including pollen, and nectar.  Residues will remain in pollen and nectar, and even contaminated soil and water long after initial application, sometimes for months and years. Bees and other pollinators will continually be exposed, exacerbating the problems faced by an already tenuous honey bee industry and further decimate bee populations.
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. There is a  growing scientific consensus  that systemic, persistent insecticides like neonicotinoids are a major contributing factor to declines in wild pollinators and honey bee colonies.  A recently published study by researchers at Purdue University  finds 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 actionâ€Â¯to protect these beneficial  organisms,  pollinators need pesticide-free habitat  throughout communities.  You can also 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.â€Â¯Sign the pledge today! Need ideas on creating the perfect pollinator habitat? Theâ€Â¯Bee Protective Habitat Guideâ€Â¯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.
(Beyond Pesticides June 2, 2016) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack recently released a Proclamation for National Pollinator Week, which is set to take place from June 20-26, 2016. National Pollinator Week began ten years ago when the U.S. Senate unanimously approved the designation of a week in June to address the urgent issue of declining pollinator populations. Pollinator week has since grown to be an international celebration of the valuable ecosystem services provided by bees, birds, butterflies, bats and all other pollinator species. While much remains to be done to combat contributing factors to pollinator declines, such as the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and disappearing pollinator habitat, National Pollinator Week is a chance to reflect and celebrate the achievements of the past year, while simultaneously raising awareness of the important role pollinators play in our daily lives.
This year, to help increase education and bring awareness to the issue of pollinator declines, Beyond Pesticides and the Center for Food Safety are teaming up with several Washington, DC area restaurants to launch a “Made by Pollinators†campaign. Participating  restaurants, which include Founding Farmers, Lavagna, Tabard Inn and Restaurant Nora, will  educate the public on the importance of pollinators in our daily lives by marking up their  menus to show patrons how many of their favorite dishes contain ingredients that rely on pollinators  for production. Currently, one out of every three bites of food we take requires pollination, a fact these environmentally conscious restaurants will impart on the public as they dine during National Pollinator Week 2016.
To support the “Made by Pollinators†campaign, we encourage anyone in the greater Washington, DC area to make a reservation at one of these fine establishments during National Pollinator Week 2016. For information on how to do so, please see below. Additionally, if you know of a restaurant in your area that may wish to participate in the “Made by Pollinators†campaign, click here to read our flyer on how to get involved.
MAKE A RESERVATION at one of our participating restaurants to celebrate National Pollinator Week!
In addition to the “Made by Pollinators†campaign, Beyond Pesticides is also supporting the national Keep the Hives Alive Tour, which will culminate in Washington, DC during National Pollinator Week. The Keep the Hives Alive Tour aims to educate the general public on the impact bee-toxic chemicals have on the livelihoods of American beekeepers. The tour will travel across the United States, holding rallies and events to raise awareness about pollinator declines, and urge action on bee-toxic pesticides to safe guard our food supply. If you would like to contribute to the Keep the Hives Alive Tour or find out how to get involved, please visit the Indiegogo campaign page.
Finally, Beyond Pesticides will be participating in USDA’s seventh annual Pollinator Festival on Friday, June 24 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. The festival, which is held outside USDA Headquarters next to the Headquarters People Garden and USDA Farmers Market along 12st street SW, in Washington, DC. Beyond Pesticides will be distributing clover and other pollinator friendly seeds, as well as sharing information about the organization’s efforts to protect pollinators, so be sure to stop by if you are in the area.
For more information on how to help pollinators in your area, visit our BEE Protective page. Bee Protective  is a national campaign established by Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety, and works with municipalities, campuses, and homeowners to adopt policies that protect pollinators from bee-toxic pesticides. You can also help fight pollinator declines by signing our petition to tell the Environmental Protection Agency to ACT NOW on bee killing pesticides. Click here to add your name before June 22nd!
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
(Beyond Pesticides, June 1, 2016) A study  by researchers at Purdue University has concluded  that honey bees collect most of their pollen from non-crop plants that are frequently contaminated with agricultural and urban pesticides. The researchers found this to be true even in places where croplands dominate the area.  The study, which detected neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, fungicides, and others, highlights the large number of toxic pesticides to which bees are exposed to in the environment.
Researchers collected pollen from Indiana honey bee hives at three sites over 16 weeks. The hives were placed in a variety of settings, such as an open meadow with wildflowers, woody shrubs and trees present (non-agricultural), the border of a corn field that was treated with the neonicotinoid clothianidin and three fungicides, and the border of a non-treated corn field. The pollen samples that were collected by the bees represented up to 30 plant families and contained residues from pesticides spanning nine chemical classes. The researchers found 29 pesticides in pollen from the meadow site, 29 pesticides in pollen from the treated cornfield, and 31 pesticides in pollen from the untreated cornfield. The most common chemical products found in pollen from each site were fungicides and herbicides, typical crop disease and weed management products. Of the insecticides that were found, in addition to neonicotinoids, the highest concentrations in the bee pollen were pyrethroids, typically used to control mosquitoes.
“Although crop pollen was only a minor part of what they collected, bees in our study were exposed to a far wider range of chemicals than we expected,” said Christian Krupke, Ph.D., one of the researchers, in a press release. “The sheer numbers of pesticides we found in pollen samples were astonishing. Agricultural chemicals are only part of the problem. Homeowners and urban landscapes are big contributors, even when hives are directly adjacent to crop fields.” Pyrethroids, typically used near homes and gardens with many different kinds of flowering plants, where pollinators are likely to be found, may expose bees to higher levels of chemicals on a more frequent basis.
Pyrethroids, due to their toxicity to bees, are thought by some researchers to be a major contributor to the significant decline in bee populations after neonicotinoids. In fact, some scientists are finding that honey bees’ olfactory receptor neurons, which are responsible for inter-individual communication, are affected by pyrethroid exposures. Studies find that sublethal concentrations of the pyrethroids can significantly reduce bee fecundity and decrease the rate at which bees develop to adulthood and reproduce. Several field and laboratory studies using pyrethroids have consistently documented decreases in foraging activity and activity at the hive entrance after exposure.
What Can You Do?
There are safer and more effective alternatives to pyrethroid-based mosquito control, given that these spray programs are of very limited efficacy. In a study published  in  the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, former Cornell University professor of entomology David Pimentel, PhD calculated that less than .0001 percent of ultra low volume (ULV) pesticide sprays reach target insects. Further, along with vulnerable honey bees, people with compromised immune systems, chemically sensitized people, pregnant women, and children with respiratory problems, such as asthma, are particularly vulnerable to these pesticide spray programs and will suffer disproportionately from exposure.
Beyond Pesticides believes the ideal mosquito management strategy comes from an integrated approach that emphasizes education, aggressive removal of standing water sources, larval control, monitoring, and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. Control of disease-carrying mosquitoes can be successful when emphasis is placed on public education and preventive strategies. Individuals can take action by eliminating standing water, introducing mosquito-eating fish, encouraging predators, such as bats, birds, dragonflies and frogs, and using least-toxic larvacides like bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). Community based programs should encourage residents to employ these effective techniques, focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, and promote monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed. Through education of proper cultural controls, and least-toxic and cost effective biological alternatives, the use of hazardous  control methods, such as toxic pesticides, can be eliminated, and you can better protect pollinators such as honey bees.
Let’s BEE Protective and support a shift away from the use of these toxic chemicals by encouraging organic methods and sustainable land management practices in your home, campus, or community.
(Beyond Pesticides May 31, 2016) Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a revised version of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), marking the first time since 1976 Congress has taken steps to address the vast shortcomings of the law to protect human health and safety. Their revisions miss the mark, however, as the changes create the potential for new hurdles, delays, and restrictions on states’ ability to enact their own toxic chemical regulations. This is a dangerous development, expecially given the bipartisan recognition and acknowledgement of the need for TSCA reform. As the bill heads to the Senate, environmental advocates who believe in the preservation of state and local power to regulate toxics more stringently than the federal government must act to prevent its passage.
Public health advocates and environmentalists have argued for decades that the  1976 Toxic Substances Control Act  is outdated and riddled with gaps that leave Americans exposed to harmful chemicals. Under current law, around 64,000 chemicals are not subject to environmental testing or regulation. In absence of federal reform over the past 40 years, many states, including Washington, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, New York and Vermont, have stepped up to fill the void, taking actions such as setting exposure limits lower than federal levels and enacting bans on dangerous toxic products like lead-weighted wheels and flame retardant mattresses. If the TSCA revisions pass, state authority to act and protect beyond the federal scope would be undermined.
Those who argue for federal preemption of state environmental or public health laws maintain that uniformity of law is necessary in commerce. The U.S. democracy, however, is based on the ability of states and local governments to adopt standards that respond to local and state concerns and conditions. Additionally, typically, states do not exceed federal standards unless there is a weakness in the public health or environmental protections. Throughout the history of pesticide regulation, federal government action from time-to-time has been preceded by state action. Pesticides, such as DDT, DBCB, chlordane, EDB, and others were first banned by states, followed by federal action. Similarly, states have adopted requirements for posting and notice, school integrated pest management, field reentry restrictions for farmworkers, and other standards that more stringent than  federal law. In fact, because federal pesticide and toxic laws have upheld the right of  states to exceed federal standards for pesticide use, stronger federal law has resulted over time. As a result, Beyond Pesticides has maintained that it is essential to uphold the basic principle that states and localities have the authority to adopt  more restrictive standards preempted by the federal government. The role of the federal government is too establish a regulatory floor, not a ceiling.
While the final bill looks better in some ways than where it started, it does not look good on one of the issues that matters most —state preemption. As written, the bill relies on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect public health, an obligation they continually fall short on, while simultaneously making it more difficult for states to go above and beyond EPA standards. Meanwhile, extreme legislators and public figures, including presidential hopeful Donald Trump, have called for elimination of EPA, raising questions about  the agency’s longevity as a regulatory entity able to protect citizens from the harms associated with toxic chemicals.
While TSCA is badly in need of an update, this is not an update that should be supported. This state preemption provision is an unprecedented intrusion states’ ability to protect residents and the environment. For those reasons, we urge you to call your Senator (phone numbers listed in the link below) and tell them to preserve the right of your state to protect the health and environment of its residents when EPA fails to regulate or regulate adequately toxic substances.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2016) — Thanks to the hard work and efforts of beekeepers, environmental groups, scientists, legislators and activists, Maryland is the first state to pass legislation through its General Assembly that restricts consumers from using neonicotinoids, a pollinator-toxic pesticide. Earlier this month, the state of Connecticut also passed far-reaching legislation aimed at protecting pollinator populations from these toxic chemicals.
The Maryland Pollinator Protection Act (Senate Bill 198/House Bill 211) will become law without the Governor’s signature. Supporters had feared a veto from the executive office, but as a result of overwhelming pressure from beekeepers and activists, Governor Larry Hogan (R) allowed the bill to come into law. Under the Act, consumers will not be permitted to buy pesticides that contain neonicotinoids starting in 2018. Certified pesticide applicators, farmers and veterinarians will be still be allowed to use neonicotinoids.
Connecticut’s bill also restricts consumer use of neonicotinoids. In addition, it requires the creation of pollinator habitat on state lands, and begins to address the use of these chemicals in agriculture by developing best practices on neonicotinoid coated seeds, and model pollinator habitat in farm preservation programs.
As Maryland’s bill made its way through the legislature, an amendment was attached to the Senate language, and later rejected,  that implied legislative intent to preempt (take away) the authority of municipalities in Maryland to adopt local pesticide restrictions that are more restrictive than state policy on all property within their jurisdiction. The Senate language, which required a report and recommendation “to ensure state laws and regulations are consistent†with EPA, would have put the legislature on record, for the first time, as seeking to ensure preemption. Maryland is one of seven states that does not preempt local jurisdictions from adopting pesticide restrictions more stringent  than the state.
Numerous studies confirm that neonics contribute to bee mortality, as well as to declines in native pollinators, including birds and butterflies. At the national level, beekeepers lost an average of 44% of their colonies over the past year. Losses for Maryland beekeepers have consistently been higher than national averages, with beekeepers losing upwards of 60% of their hives in 2015.
“This is a historic moment for our state that can be attributed to the hard work and dedication of many Maryland scientists, beekeepers, farmers, legislators as well as public health, food and environmental advocates,†says Ruth Berlin, executive director of the Maryland Pesticide Education Network. “We are excited that this important legislation will become law. This Act is necessary for our future food supply. We hope this motivates other states — and the federal government — to reduce the use of toxic neonic pesticides.â€
“If we’re going to have a healthy food system in this country, we need pollinators to thrive,†said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. “With the passage of the Pollinator Protection Act in Maryland, the Pollinator Health bill in Connecticut, states are sending a message to the White House, EPA, and Congress that the actions they’ve taken to date are simply not enough.â€
(Beyond Pesticides, May 27, 2016) Oxitec, a self-described pioneer in using advanced genetics to control target  insects, has petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant emergency approval of genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes to fight the spread of the Zika virus. Oxitec has proposed a trial to determine the efficacy of their self-limiting mosquitoes for the control of Aedes aegypti, a type of mosquito known to transmit the Zika virus, in Key Haven, Monroe County, Florida. However, some in the environmental community are concerned about the possible non-target effects of releasing these genetically modified mosquitoes into nature and urge additional research in the lab.
The plan for a release of these GE mosquitoes has been in the works for a while. In February 2015, it was reported that the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) was working alongside Oxitec to release these GE mosquitoes, but, at the time, the plan had not yet been finalized. A change.org petition against the release garnered over 146,000 signatures and continues to grow, with numbers around 168,000 to this date. In February 2016, Oxitec submitted a draft environmental assessment to FDA, and a month later, FDA published a preliminary finding of no significant impact in support of the Key Haven field trial.  The public comment period for these two documents closed on May 13, with over 1,000 comments, and FDA is currently reviewing those comments and all other information that was submitted. Oxitec is not  currently  allowed to conduct field trials until the FDA has finished its review.
Oxitec has produced the GE line of Aedes aegypti with the intent of suppressing the population of that mosquito at the release site. Aedes aegypti is known to transmit  potentially debilitating human viral diseases, including  Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya. With the exception of chikungunya in Florida and a 2005 outbreak of dengue in Texas, there have not been any local transmission of Zika and yellow fever in mainland U.S. Local transmission requires the existence  of diseased mosquitoes, as opposed to insect-borne diseases that are contracted while traveling abroad.
Open field trials of the GE mosquito have been conducted in certain places, such as Brazil. Experiments with Oxitec’s GE mosquitoes call for large numbers of modified males to be released in the wild to mate with female mosquitoes and produce offspring that are unable to develop. To create these autocidal male mosquitoes, the company uses the antibiotic tetracycline to act as a chemical switch, allowing the GE larvae to develop and survive in the lab, rather than die immediately as planned in the wild. Larvae are supposed to die in the wild due to an absence of tetracycline.
However, internal Oxitec documents discuss an experiment where 15% of insects in the lab survived because mosquitoes were fed off of chicken-based cat food that contained low levels of tetracycline even after it was heat-treated in attempts to remove traces of the antibiotic. Tetracycline is used in a variety of different settings, from agriculture to the control of human diseases, and ultimately makes its way into the environment. Studies show that most wastewater treatment plants are unable to effectively remove tetracycline antibiotics, and the compound is frequently detected in surface water, ground water, drinking water, wastewater, soils and sediment. Thus, low levels of tetracycline in the environment may result in only a temporary reduction in the numbers of disease carrying mosquitoes. And there are further questions regarding the impacts of how tetracycline-exposed survivor GE mosquitoes may impact human health or wildlife.
Speaking to USA Today, Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said questions remain about the altered bugs. Oxitec has not yet shown that the mosquitoes reduce rates of diseases such as Zika. And, tests of insects were relatively small, meaning there’s no way to know whether the technology will be effective on a large scale, he added.
Alternatives and Public Education
Control of disease-carrying mosquitoes can be successful when emphasis is placed on public education and preventative strategies. Individuals can take action by eliminating standing water, introducing mosquito-eating fish, encouraging predators such as bats, birds, dragonflies and frogs, and using least-toxic larvacides like bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti). Community based programs should encourage residents to employ these effective techniques, focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, and promote monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed. New Jersey’s Cape May County provides an excellent example of a low-risk alternative to employing insecticides or introducing GE species. Cape May has used mosquitoes’ natural predators, tiny copepods, to eat the larvae of the mosquito. Through education of proper cultural controls, and least-toxic and cost effective biological alternatives, the use of risky technologies such as toxic pesticides and GE mosquitoes can be avoided.
For additional information and resources on least-toxic mosquito control alternatives, see Beyond Pesticides’ Mosquito Management program page.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 26, 2015) Maryland’s historic Pollinator Protection Act, (SB 198 and HB 211) may be in danger. Last month, lawmakers approved the bill by a 98-39 vote in the Maryland House of Delegates, however it faces the possibility of a veto by Governor Larry Hogan (R). While the governor’s office says that the bill is currently under review, according to local news source WBAL, the governor is prepared to veto the bill, which he has until tomorrow, Friday, May 27, to do. If the governor does veto the bill, Maryland’s Pollinator Protection Act will go back to the legislature for an override vote, which will take place in early 2017.
Meanwhile, beekeepers continue to lose their bees at unprecedented rates. Last week, we reported results of 2015-16 Colony Loss Survey, which show no sign that the crisis of abating. According to the survey, beekeepers lost 28.1% of their colonies over this past winter, and a total of 44% of their colonies over the last year. This marks the second year in a row that summer declines (28.1%) were on par with declines experienced during winter.
WBAL reports that the governor is likely to veto the bill because of the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s testimony submitted in opposition to the Pollinator Protection Act, which cites a lack of scientific evidence linking neonicotinoids to pollinator decline. However, there is an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that neonicotinoids, such as imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin working individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators. Neonicotinoids affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and eventual death. These pesticides have consistently been implicated as a key contributor  in pollinator declines, not only through immediate bee deaths, but also through sublethal exposure that causes  changes in bee reproduction, navigation, and foraging. Pesticide exposure can impair both detoxification mechanisms and immune responses, rendering bees more susceptible to viruses, parasites, and other diseases, and leading to devastating bee losses.
The bill represents an important step by the Maryland legislature, since consumers in the state would be prohibited from using products containing neonicotinoid pesticides starting in 2018. However, the legislation’s  reach does not extend to farmers, veterinarians, and certified pesticide applicators, who will still be permitted to apply  the chemicals. Consumers can also buy treated plants and seedlings from stores without any labeling. Cumulatively, these present major sources of exposure for bees and other pollinators.
Shortly after Maryland’s Pollinator Protection Act was passed through the legislature, the Connecticut legislature unanimously passed a wide-ranging bill, Bill No. 231, An Act Concerning Pollinator Health to protect declining pollinator populations from neonics, which was signed into law by Governor Dannel P. Malloy earlier this month.
Numerous local communities, universities, and retailers have also taken steps to remove neonicotinoid pesticides from use. At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to suspend the use of  neonics  until they have been proven not to result in unreasonable adverse effects on pollinators through the Saving America’s Pollinators Act.  While the White House has established a National Pollinator Health Strategy, it is evident that more will need to be done to address pesticide use in order to achieve President Obama’s goal of no more than 15% annual winter losses within the next decade. In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office concurred that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture are not doing enough to protect pollinators.
Proactive state and local steps to address the issue of pollinator decline is critical in the absence of federal action. Beyond Pesticides has long advocated a regulatory approach that prohibits toxic pesticide  use and requires alternative assessments. We suggest 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 neonicotinoids. See  Bee Protective  to learn  how you can help.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 25, 2016) New York City’s Prospect Park is bringing in a herd of goats to fight back opportunistic species that are encroaching in an area of the park after damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Rather than spray toxic weed killers like 2,4-D, triclopyr, or glyphosate, the Prospect Park Alliance used the grant money it obtained from the National Park Service to bring in these 4-legged weed warriors as a safe and environmentally friendly way to restore storm-damaged areas.
“We are pleased to welcome these goats to Prospect Park to help us further the important woodland restoration work that has always been a focus for the Alliance,” Prospect Park Alliance President Sue Donoghue said to ABC7. “These goats will provide an environmentally-friendly approach to our larger efforts, which will not only beautify the Park, but make it more resilient to future storms.”
After Hurricane Sandy barreled up the east coast, a roughly 1.5 acre area of Prospect Park was seriously damaged, with 100s of trees toppled. The disturbance has allowed so-called invasive species to move into the park, supplanting the regrowth of native species in the last remaining forested area in the borough of Brooklyn. Goats act as broad-spectrum weed killers; they will eat everything. In fact, goats are often more efficient at eradicating weeds, and are more environmentally sustainable than using harmful pesticides and chemicals. Once goats graze a weed it cannot go to seed because it has no flower and cannot photosynthesize to take in sunlight and build a root system because it has no leaves. Grasses are a last choice for goats, which means desirable grass species are left behind with natural fertilizer to repopulate the land. Goats are notorious for eating poisonous plants, such as poison ivy and poison oak, and can handle them without getting sick.
Goats are perfect for areas where even mechanical controls are difficult to use. “This area’s steep hillsides present unique challenges and access issues for staff and machinery, but are easily accessible to goats-providing an environmentally friendly and highly efficient approach to weed removal,” said Christian Zimmerman, Prospect Park Alliance Vice President of Capital and Landscape Management to ABC7. “Once their work is complete, we will then plant new native trees and shrubs, including red and white oaks, spicebush and service berry, which will help bring back important habitat for birds and other wildlife.” Goats also provide a great attraction for kids and parents alike, who can watch the ruminant animals hard at work.
Beyond Pesticides has long been an advocate for the use of goats and grazing animals as a least-toxic, biological solution for weed management. To learn more, read “Successfully Controlling Noxious Weeds with Goats: The natural choice that manages weeds and builds soil health.†Watch Beyond Pesticides’ Board Member Lani Malmberg, a professional goat herder and owner of Ewe4ic Ecological Services, speak at the 33rd National Pesticide Conference along with other experts on the Organic Land Management and Cutting Edge Alternatives panel. For more information on natural, non-chemical land management strategies see Beyond Pesticides’ Lawns and Landscapes and Invasive Weed Management pages.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
(Beyond Pesticides May 24, 2016) Nearly two years after the first legal retail sales of marijuana in Washington State, the state Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) finally took action to protect the rights of consumers by strengthening its ability to issue product recalls when there is a risk to health and safety. Under the new rules, businesses will be required to isolate and prevent the distribution of products that violate state pesticide regulations, and, in certain cases, may mandate that some products be destroyed under the LCB’s supervision. This action is the final codification of emergency rules that were passed by the state earlier this year to combat contaminated cannabis products.
The move by Washington follows  widespread cannabis recalls  in the City of Denver,  and actions from Colorado’s Governor  to declare pesticide-tainted cannabis “a threat to public safety.†However, it is not all good news as the state also set allowable levels for unapproved pesticides on pot. Washington State currently lists  over 200  pesticide products as permitted in cannabis production, despite their lack of compliance with federal and state testing requirements for the range of consumer, worker, and environmental exposures. Outside of that list, the state previously employed a “zero tolerance†policy for marijuana testing positive for any other pesticides. However, amid concerns of drift from neighboring food-crop farms, as well as alleged difficulties for labs to test for zero residue, the LCB set thresholds for unapproved pesticides that mirror levels adopted by Oregon. According to the new rules, anything testing below the threshold levels is considered safe, despite the lack of testing for increased exposure through inhalation, ingestion, and skin absorption of pesticide-treated marijuana.
Beyond Pesticides supports criteria that  limits allowed pesticides to those that are exempt from registration under federal pesticide law and also permitted for use in organic production, as has been done in New Hampshire. As outlined in a letter sent from Beyond Pesticides to Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) officials, adhering exclusively to pesticides allowed  under 25(b) [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)] is the best way to avoid any legal ramifications for unregistered pesticide use, as well as protect  workers, consumers and the environment safe from the unstudied side effects that may result from the use of toxic pesticides on marijuana crops. With  this  approach, Beyond Pesticides urges growers to develop an organic system plan that encourages pest prevention, and eliminating pest-conducive conditions.  Implementing this approach, advocates say,  will ensure the sustained growth of cannabis production that protects public health and the environment.
Also concerning when it comes to the new Washington rules is the continued failure to require pesticide testing for all marijuana products. Instead, the state relies on spot inspections and complaints to determine whether a crop has been treated with illegal pesticides. Jason Zitzer, lab chief at Trace Analytics in Spokane, WA, showed his concern over the levels of illegal pesticides found in marijuana stating, “I know I have bias and it sounds self-serving given our testing capabilities in the market, but a very high percentage of samples we are testing are lighting up with residues way above the Oregon proposed action levels.†This is troubling, as available data on  pesticide exposure  from  residue in cannabis smoke  raises serious health concerns.  Those who use  cannabis for medicinal purposes may  have underlying health conditions that can be complicated or worsened by pesticide exposure. Implementing an emergency measure to allow state recalls is a step forward, but requires a strong enforcement mechanism and way of ensuring that even the most sensitive medicinal cannabis users are protected.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2016) At the Breaking Through Power conference today, Beyond Pesticides’ executive director, Jay Feldman, will provide a retrospective on 35 years of Beyond Pesticides’ work and outline critical needs moving forward to protect health and the environment. This historic meeting of civic engagement across national social action organizations comes at a time when bee colonies have experienced sustained losses above 40% (44% 2015-16 and 42% 2014-15). Central to the ecosystem, pollinators are essential to the viability of one-third of the food supply.
Meanwhile, with the surge in genetically engineered crops, pesticide use is increasing exponentially, as herbicide use increased 4 to 18% a year, depending on the crop, over the last decade, while weed and insect resistance is growing rapidly —threatening productivity. Twenty-four species of weeds in 29 states and worldwide now exhibit resistance to the most widely used herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate).
Advocates say that pesticide impacts on clean air, water, and food continue to be ignored by the chemical industry and a slow moving Environmental Protection Agency. Meanwhile, communities across the country are adopting local laws and policies that restrict pesticide use, and two states, Maryland and Massachusetts, have passed bills that ban retail sale of the neonicotinoid pesticides linked to pollinator decline.
Beyond Pesticides points to certified organic agriculture as the answer to the pesticide treadmill of increasing use of toxic pesticides harmful to people, pollinators, biodiversity and a sustainable environment.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2016) With Monsanto’s  earnings forecast cut and shares down 19%, Bayer AG has made a takeover bid for  the company, worth $42 billion, in an attempt to swallow the global seed producer and become the world’s biggest farm chemical supplier. Although the terms of the proposal have not yet been disclosed, Bayer confirmed the bid to Bloomberg News, and Monsanto said it is reviewing the offer. If the offer is accepted, it could be the biggest acquisition globally in 2016, and the largest German deal ever, according to Bloomberg data analysis. Bayer is known for a wide range of products, from aspirin and birth control to flea and tick collars and insecticides. Monsanto is the creator of the widely used and controversial herbicide formulation Roundup, which has glyphosate as its active ingredient.
In order to finance the takeover, Bayer may consider selling off its stakes in its animal health business and plastics/foam chemicals business (Covestro AG), worth an estimated $6 billion and $5.5 billion, respectively. The takeover would solidify both companies in certain ways; Monsanto would strengthen Bayer’s seed business, while a deal with Bayer would help reduce Monsanto’s reliance on the agricultural industry.
There has been a flurry of activity and mergers  in the big agricultural and chemical industries lately. In December 2015, 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 February 2016, China National Chemical Corp. acquired Syngenta AG, months after a failed attempt by Monsanto to takeover Syngenta. Many of these big agricultural and chemical companies have been struggling to cope with falling demand for farm chemicals due to falling crop prices and a strong dollar, and may believe that a merger will provide longer-term security.
However, for the billion-dollar agrochemical industry, a merger is likely to only provide short-term stability, increase the wealth of top executives, and raise the cost of food, as the new corporation will create a near monopoly that  will allow it  to increase prices. In the long-term, the market will reveal that relying on the promotion of chemical-intensive agricultural practices is not a sustainable business practice. Chemical-intensive (or conventional)  agriculture depends on chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides that have been shown to reduce soil organic matter and decrease the diversity of soil biota. These chemical inputs contaminate waterways leading to eutrophication and “dead zones,†where nothing is able to live or grow. Eventually, as chemical intensive agriculture depletes organic matter in the soil and there is nothing left with which to grow food or sustain life, chemical inputs will become obsolete. Sustainability advocates say that the  only way that the agricultural industry can create a sustainable business model is to produce products that are compatible with  organic agriculture.
While some 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 eutrophication, soil erosion, harm to wildlife, healthcare costs to consumers, and numerous other adverse effects. Some researchers calculate the adverse impacts to health and the environment to be as much as $16.9 billion a year (Tegtmeier and Duffy 2004). 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.
Good organic practices work to build the soil and maintain an ecological balance that makes chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides obsolete. Claims that organic agriculture cannot feed the world because of lower yields are contested by scientific studies showing that organic yields are comparable to conventional yields and require significantly lower inputs. Organic agriculture advocates say that it is not only necessary in order to eliminate the use of toxic chemicals, but to ensure the long-term sustainability of food production.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 19, 2016) Using fear without facts, Congress is yet again attempting to gut Clean Water Act (CWA) provisions that protect waterways and communities from excessive pesticide pollution. In a move that was blasted by House Democrats this week, HR 897  (which was introduced as the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015) was renamed the  Zika Vector Control Act, despite the fact that the bill does not actually do anything to address the threat of Zika. The legislation was defeated Tuesday on a suspension vote, 262-159, however the bill will be going to the Rules Committee on Monday, with anticipated House floor activity on Tuesday, May 24. (Take action: urge your representative to oppose HR 897.)
“In a brazenly political act, the Republican leadership is trying to mask gutting the Clean Water Act as having something to do with fighting Zika,†Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said in a statement to The Hill. “This bill has nothing to do with Zika and everything to do with Republicans’ relentless special interest attacks on the Clean Water Act,†he said. “It will do nothing to stem the growing threat of the Zika virus.â€
The bill reverses a 2009 federal court decision in National Cotton Council v. EPAthat directed EPA to require permits from applicators who spray over “navigable waters,†as outlined in the CWA. It also follows years offailed attempts to repeal the Pesticide General Permit and allow pesticides to be discharged into bodies of water without federal oversight, as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not require tracking of such applications.
Under this legislation, pesticide applicators will  be able to discharge pesticides into waterways with no EPA oversight under the standards of the CWA and the permitting process, which takes into account local conditions that are not addressed under FIFRA. Furthermore, permits do not prevent applicators from using pesticides, especially for public health emergencies. The permits do require basic protections for water quality and aquatic wildlife. Applicators must simply record their pesticide applications and monitor application sites for any adverse incidents, which must be reported.
The reality is that including a CWA permitting process encourages pesticide users to seek alternative approaches to pest management if their current methods are going to contaminate nearby sources of water. Such a provision is not duplicative or burdensome, but simply an example of good governance.
“In past Congresses, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have used the public health emergency de jour as rationale to pass and enact this legislation into law. At one time, West Nile Virus, the next western wildland fire suppression, and last Congress it was the drought,†said U.S. Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD) in a statement. “Now, in nothing less than a purely political move, Republicans are considering this bill on suspension, but under the guise of combatting the spread of Zika.â€
Meaningful Action to Curb Zika
The Zika Vector Control Act does not include any language that would actually help stem mosquito populations. The only thing that has changed since it was known as the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act is the title. Proponents of the legislation are essentially arguing that successful control of the Zika virus is contingent upon on a community’s ability to spray pesticides without having to apply for a permit if there is concern for contaminating nearby water. However, the efficacy of adulticidal pesticide applications (aerial or ground spraying) has been called into question over the years. This is usually the least efficient mosquito control technique, as it only targets adult mosquitoes that are present at the time of application. Further, the drifting spray impacts other non-target organisms like pollinators, birds, fish and amphibians.
Most experts agree that whether it’s Zika, Chikengunya or West Nile Virus, combating mosquito-borne infections should include good surveillance and scientific understanding for controlling mosquito populations. An efficient mosquito management strategy emphasizes public awareness, prevention, and monitoring methods. However, if these methods are not used properly, in time, or are ineffective, communities must determine if they should risk exposing vulnerable populations to potentially harmful diseases caused by mosquitoes or to chronic or deadly illnesses caused by pesticides. Commonly used mosquito pesticides like permethrin, resmethrin, naled and malation are all associated with some measure of human and ecological health risks, especially among people with compromised immune systems, chemically sensitized people, pregnant women, and children with respiratory problems, such as asthma.
Beyond Pesticides’ ideal  mosquito management strategy  comes from an integrated approach that emphasizes education, aggressive removal of standing water (which are breeding areas), larval control, monitoring, and surveillance for both mosquito-borne illness and pesticide-related illness. Control of disease-carrying mosquitoes can be successful when emphasis is placed on public education and preventive strategies.
Individuals can take action by eliminating standing water, introducing mosquito-eating fish, encouraging predators, such as bats, birds, dragonflies and frogs, and using least-toxic larvacides like  bacillus thuringiensis israelensis  (Bti). Community based programs should encourage residents to employ these effective techniques, focus on eliminating breeding sites on public lands, and promote monitoring and action levels in order to determine what, where, and when control measures might be needed. Through education of proper cultural controls, and least-toxic and cost effective biological alternatives, the use of hazardous  control methods, such as toxic pesticides, can be eliminated.
Take Action:
Send a letter to your U.S. Representative urging opposition to  HR 897 and support of the Clean Water Act. Tell your Rep.  not to give in to fear: the Zika Vector Control Act, despite the misleading name, will not protect against Zika virus, but instead will allow for would eliminate safeguards that protect our waterways and communities from excessive pesticide pollution.
Learn More About Mosquito Management: Arm yourself with knowledge about safe and effective management programs by checking out Beyond Pesticides’ Mosquito Management program page, which lists resources that can help you and your community safely manage mosquitoes, including least-toxic mosquito repellents, bed nets, and proper clothing that can be used to keep mosquitoes safely at bay.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 18, 2016) The controversy continues on glyphosate’s (Roundup) cancer causing properties, as some question the influence of the chemical industry and Monsanto, Roundup’s manufacturer, on newly announced  findings, according to The Guardian.  A joint review by the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) on  glyphosate, released this week,  seems to contradict earlier findings (at least based on food exposure) of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (the preeminent scientific body on carcinogenesis in the world), which classified Roundup as a “probable human carcinogen.”
The Guardian disclosed, “Professor Alan Boobis, who chaired the UN’s joint FAO/WHO meeting on glyphosate, also works as the vice-president of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI) Europe. The co-chair of the sessions was Professor Angelo Moretto, a board member of ILSI’s Health and Environmental Services Institute, and of its Risk21 steering group too, which Boobis also co-chairs.  In 2012, the ILSI group took a $500,000 donation from Monsanto and a $528,500 donation from the industry group Croplife International, which represents  Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and others, according to documents obtained by the US right to know campaign. Boobis was not able to comment on the issue, and ILSI’s office in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for more information.”
Separating independent scientific findings or interpretation of data from those influenced by chemical industry interests has been a long standing problem in the public debate and media discussion on pesticide hazards. It is not uncommon for scientific interpretation by  those affiliated with the chemical industry to be given equal weight to independent peer reviewed studies. Aaron Blair, Ph.D. chaired the IARC review. Dr. Blair  ran the National Cancer Institute’s Occupation Studies Branch and is the author of over 450 publications on occupational and environmental causes of cancer.
The review, put out through a joint FAO/WHO meeting on pesticide residues in food, does not look at other sources of exposure. Â “In view of the absence of carcinogenic potential in rodents at human-relevant doses and the absence of genotoxicity by the oral route in mammals, and considering the epidemiological evidence from occupational exposures, the meeting concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet,” the committee said.
The committee added that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic, or harmful to cells’ genetic material, to humans. However, one scientist who was a part of IARC’s expert panel that reviewed glyphosate  spoke of glyphosate’s genotoxic potential, stating  that the herbicide can damage human DNA, which can  result in increased cancer risks.
The review also assessed diazinon and malathion and concluded that these pesticides were unlikely to cause cancer through exposure from the diet.
In separate document published along with the joint FAO/WHO statement, the WHO denied that the conclusions by the joint group and by IARC were contradictory. It said they were “different, yet complementary,” with the IARC assessment focused on hazard while the other looked at risk.
Months after the IARC review, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), an independent agency funded by the European Union, published a different assessment, saying glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.†However, EFSA’s report is limited in that it reviewed glyphosate alone, unlike IARC which reviewed glyphosate and its formulated products, which are more relevant for evaluating risks to human health. Further, EFSA notes that the “toxicity of the formulations should be considered further†as studies that evaluated glyphosate formulations did find positive results of genotoxicity both in vitro and in vivo. EFSA also notes that other toxic outcomes, such as long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity and endocrine disrupting potential of glyphosate formulations, should be clarified and addressed further.
EU’s pesticides committee is due to meet later this week to decide whether to re-license glyphosate. The U.S. EPA is being investigated for withdrawing a report saying the chemical is probably not carcinogenic.
Glyphosate residues have been detected in foods and products that are not typically associated with heavy glyphosate use, and  even in organic foods and products, in which the use of glyphosate is prohibited. This pervasive pesticide exposure suggests that glyphosate cannot be contained to the target pest or crop and represents an exposure problem (or contamination, since it involves unintended exposure)  much broader than risk assessors have assumed.
In March 2016, Moms Across America released a report on glyphosate residues in California wines. The report finds that all of the ten wines test positive for glyphosate.  Other recent reports of the widespread presence of glyphosate residues find the chemical in  breast milk,  in nearly 100% of Germans and  in German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and  bread. Other sources of exposure include agricultural spraying. A 2015 report found that 54 percent of glyphosate spraying in California is applied in eight counties, many of which are located in the southern part of the Central Valley. The analysis finds that the populations in these counties are predominantly Hispanic or Latino, indicating that glyphosate use in California is distributed unequally along both socioeconomic and racial lines.
While glyphosate is touted as a “low toxicity†chemical and “safer†than other chemicals by industry, it has been shown to have detrimental impacts on humans and the environment. Given its widespread use on residential and agricultural sites, its toxicity is of increasing concern. A mounting body of data has found that formulated glyphosate (Roundup) products are more toxic than the active ingredient, glyphosate, alone. Roundup formulations can induce a dose-dependent formation of DNA adducts (altered forms of DNA linked to chemical exposure, playing a key role in chemical carcinogenesis) in the kidneys and liver of mice. Human cell endocrine disruption on the androgen receptor, inhibition of transcriptional activities on estrogen receptors on HepG2, DNA damage and cytotoxic effects occurring at concentrations well below “acceptable†residues have all been observed. A 2008 study confirms that the ingredients in Roundup formulations kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells, even at very low concentrations, and causes total cell death within 24 hrs.
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 genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant 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.
Given the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards, environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or ban the use of the chemical.  Tracy Madlener, a mother of two, who got  her neighborhood in Laguna Hills, California to  eliminate the use of the widely-used weedkiller. Beyond Pesticides promotes these actions and many more through our  Tools for Change  page. This page is designed to help activists and other concerned citizens organize around a variety of pesticide issues on the local, state, and national level. Learn how to  organize a campaign  and talk to your neighbors about pesticides with our  factsheets. See Beyond Pesticides’ article  Glyphosate Causes Cancer.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2016) It was 10 years ago that commercial beekeepers first reported widespread, unsustainable winter losses of their honey bee colonies. A decade after the alarm was first sounded on pollinator declines, results of 2015-16 Colony Loss Survey show no sign the crisis of abating. According to the Bee Informed Partnership survey, beekeepers lost 28.1% of their colonies over this past winter, and a total of 44% of their colonies over the last year.
This marks the second year in a row that summer declines (28.1%) were on par with declines experienced during winter. Beekeepers factor in that a small percentage, <15% of their colonies, will be lost each winter, but do not expect to lose colonies during the summer, when there is amble forage and nectar for bees. The costs beekeepers must incur to keep their hives alive continue to increase. More time and money is spent to maintain their hives, yet losses continue to be staggering â€â€ and unsustainable.
As colony collapse disorder (CCD), the cryptic loss of honey bee colonies with no sign of dead bees in or around the hive, has faded from public discussion, concerns over pollinator declines in general, from bees to butterflies and other wild and native species, have risen. CCD is not altogether eliminated or solved, but there is growing recognition that pollinator declines are not confined to honey bees. Just think: if honey bees are dying off at unprecedented rates, even with support from beekeepers, what might the losses be to bumble bees and other native pollinators? Preliminary research finds that they are at considerable risk.
The growing scientific consensus is that a class of systemic, persistent insecticides called neonicotinoids are most significant contributing factor to outsized declines in wild pollinators and managed honey bee colonies. Although the manufacturers of these chemicals, multinational companies Bayer and Syngenta continue to misrepresent the crisis by indicating that bee colony health is fine or improving, or that parasitic mites, after all, are the real issue, U.S. residents, consumers, and policymakers are beginning to see through the corporate fog.
While it is likely that neonicotinoids are not the sole factor in pollinator declines, they have been found to exacerbate other challenges that pollinators face. These chemicals weaken the immune system of honey bees, making them more likely to succumb to disease carried by varroa mites and other parasites. Multiple studies have found that bees exposed to neonicotinoids have more parasite and pathogen problems. If this disturbing trend of pollinator losses is to be broken, bees must must be better protected from neonics. Beyond Pesticides believes that exposure to harmful pesticides is something within our control, and it’s also something policy makers can â€â€ and must â€â€ do something about quickly.
In the states of Maryland and Connecticut, lawmakers are taking action to restrict the use of these harmful pesticides. Numerous local communities, universities, and retailers have also taken steps to remove neonicotinoid pesticides from use. At the federal level, Congress has an opportunity to suspend the use of  neonics  until they have been proven not to result in unreasonable adverse effects on pollinators through the Saving America’s Pollinators Act.  While the White House has established a National Pollinator Health Strategy, it is evident that more will need to be done to address pesticide use in order to achieve President Obama’s goal of no more than 15% annual winter losses within the next decade. In a recent report, the Government Accountability Office concurred that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture are not doing enough to protect pollinators.
Though folks that follow this issue closely have heard it before, it’s worth repeating: honey bees and other pollinators are responsible for one in three bites of food on American’s dinner plates. And it’s not the bread, oats, or eggs that need pollinators, but the nutritious, healthy fruits and vegetables that depend on bees, butterflies, beetles, birds, bats and other pollinators. Beyond the utilitarian view of these important species, it is critical to protect these pollinators for the inherent value that they provide to landscapes and biodiversity. Every species  lost during the ongoing pollinator crisis means a little less is known about life on this planet.
Help reverse pollinator declines by starting locally. Discontinue the use of neonic insecticides, and synthetic pesticides in general, and advocate that your neighbors and local government do the same. Â Use the Bee Protective Habitat Guide to plant a pollinator garden, and consider seeding white clover into your lawn. Join in and support the Keep the Hives Alive Tour this June, as it travels across the country to raise awareness about pollinator declines from hazardous pesticides, and encourage safer practices.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2016) Pesticide exposure may increase the risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), according to a study entitled Association of Environmental Toxins With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, which was  published in JAMA Neurology. ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord. The study, which investigated a total of 122 persistent environmental pollutants, including organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), found that pesticide exposure increased ALS risk five-fold.
Researchers conducting the study  looked at 156 patients with ALS and 128 without the disease. Participants were asked about occupational and residential exposure to environmental toxicants  and blood samples were taken to measure their concentrations. Researchers found that the organochlorine pesticides pentachlorobenzene and cis-chlordane increased ALS risk two-fold and nearly six-fold, respectively.
This study does not prove that pesticides cause ALS, but it does build on an association suggested in previous research, study co-author Stephen Goutman, MD, told  HealthDay. Dr. Goutman recommends avoiding pesticides. This is especially wise for anyone with a family history of ALS, he added.
The link between pesticide exposure and neurological damage has been studied extensively. In 2008, a team of University of Michigan scientists discovered that interactions between genes and organophosphate exposure cause some forms of motor neuron disease (MND). In a 2013 study, researchers found that individuals with a genetic mutation linked to Parkinson’s disease are more likely to develop the neurodegenerative disease if they are exposed to pesticides typically found in conventional, chemical-intensive agricultural areas, including paraquat, maneb, and rotenone. More recently, a class of fungicides known as strobilurin was found to produce patterns of genetic changes in the neurons of mice that are similar to genetic changes seen in humans with autism and Alzheimer’s disease.
Beyond Pesticides tracks the scientific literature  related to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). For more information on the multiple harms pesticides can cause, see PIDD pages on Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other diseases. Studies such as these highlight the importance of buying, growing, and supporting organic. Consumer choices encourage the protection of the people who help put food on our table every day by purchasing organic. By buying organic, you support an agricultural system that does not permit the application of dangerous pesticides. For more information on how organic is the right choice for both consumers and the farmworkers that grow our food, see Beyond Pesticides webpage, Health Benefits of Organic Agriculture.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 13, 2016)  Raising questions about Roundup’s (glyphosate) effects on soil health, a study published last month shows that the chemical  is toxic to soil fungus at doses well below levels which are recommended for agricultural use. The commercial formulation of Roundup is  more toxic than technical active ingredient,  glyphosate, highlighting the need to evaluate  full formulation  effects, including  so-called inert ingredients.
The study, published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, looked at Roundup’s effects on  a soil fungus, Aspergillus nidulans. Researchers found that a dilution of Roundup at a rate 100 times less than that  allowed in agricultural production corresponded with 50% mortality of the fungus. A dose only 50 times lower than the recommended application rate for agricultural uses resulted in 100% mortality of the fungus. Even at the median lethal dose (LD50) and lower concentrations, researchers saw impaired growth, cellular polarity, endocytosis and mitochondria (impaired average number, volume and metabolism).
The study also found that Roundup has an effect on the soil fungus’ ability to break down nutrients for energy use. Rather than depleting mitochondrial activity, as found in animal cell studies, researchers found a stimulation of mitochondrial activity in the fungal cells, indicating a different mode of action. Researchers found that energy metabolism and respiratory disturbances were detected at the NOAEL (no-observed-adverse-effect-level) dose, showing that cellular level impacts could occur even with no outward impacts to growth or yield.
Soil fungus, which is part of a wide range of soil biota, is  essential to ecosystem functioning. Constant application of pesticides, such as glyphosate, in chemical-intensive  agriculture can reduce soil diversity and therefore reduce soil functionality. Soil biota  breaks down organic matter, enables chemical elements to be reused, and fixes  nitrogen, which is necessary for nutrient 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, such as the soil fungus and other wildlife mentioned in the studies cited above; 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.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2016) Another campus, Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota has pledged to become a designated BEE Protective campus. This recognition comes from Beyond Pesticides’ and Center for Food Safety’s BEE Protective Campaign, which aims to protect bees and other pollinators from harmful pesticides like neonicotinoids. As part of its  commitment, Macalester College will  no longer use neonicotinoids on its  campus grounds. Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have severe impacts on bee populations.
Macalester is now one of several campuses around the country that have pledged to protect pollinators and move away from using harmful pesticides that are toxic to these beneficial creatures. Just last month, Â Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio pledged to become a BEE Protective campus. In addition to these campuses, several local communities and states are also taking a stand for pollinators by passing policies that restrict the use of bee-toxic pesticides. For more on how your campus or student group can support pollinators and become BEE Protective, visit the BEE Protective Ambassadors webpage.
“Macalester’s new resolution to help protect pollinators fits well with our Sustainability Plan and Sustainable Landscaping Master Plan. I’m glad that our college has this opportunity to play a role in the fight to keep bees and other important pollinators safe from harmful pesticides,†said Suzanne Savanick Hansen, Macalester College’s Sustainability Manager.
One in every three bites of food depends on bees for pollination, and the annual value of pollination services worldwide is estimated at over $125 billion. In the United States, pollination contributes $20-30 billion in agricultural production annually. Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides known to have acute and chronic effects on honey bees and other pollinators, and are considered a major factor in bee population declines and poor health. These chemicals have been shown to impair bee navigation, foraging and learning behavior, as well as suppress their immune system making them more susceptible to parasites and disease.
Resolving to be a BEE Protective campus complements other pollinator awareness initiatives at Macalester. The college recently brought honey bee colonies to its Ordway Field Station in an effort to educate students and others about bees and their imperiled status. Joining the BEE-Protective Campaign is another step Macalester has taken to make the campus and community more sustainable and committed to food ethics. In 2012, Macalester signed the Real Food Campus Commitment, joining other institutions of higher education in accepting the Real Food Challenge; a national initiative to shift $1 billion of existing university food budgets away from industrial farms and junk food and towards local/community-based, fair, ecologically sound and humane food sources by 2020. Also in 2015, the College signed the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, an effort to make campuses more sustainable and address global warming.
The BEE Protective Ambassador project taps into enthusiastic environmental activists on college campuses throughout the country wishing to make a positive impact on the health of local pollinators and other wildlife. By creating meaningful change at the University level, Ambassadors gain important experience in environmental advocacy, which will undoubtedly expand and grow as students graduate from college and continue to be environmental activists while moving through life.
Take Action: Beyond Pesticides provides campus organizations with all of the educational materials needed to advance meaningful and significant change in communities. If you know of an individual or campus organization that would be interested in taking part in this campaign  to protect pollinators and save our bees, please urge them to become a “BEE Protective Ambassador,†and ask them to sign the pledge as soon as possible. Resources and a step by step guide will then be sent out immediately following sign-up.
BEE Protective is a national campaign established by Beyond Pesticides and Center for Food Safety, and works with municipalities, campuses, and homeowners to adopt policies that protect pollinators from bee-toxic pesticides. For more information about the campaign, visit www.beeprotective.org.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 11, 2016) Beyond Pesticides is pleased to announce that videos are now available from Cultivating Community and Environmental Health: Models for sustainable and organic strategies to protect ecosystems, pollinators and waterways, the 34th National Pesticide Forum!
The videos cover the range of topics that were discussed at the Forum and include keynote speeches, panel discussions, and workshops. This year’s forum focused on the adoption of policies to protect human health and the environment, and organic land and building management strategies. Beyond Pesticides encourages activists, community leaders, scientists, and policy makers to attend its annual National Pesticide Forum in person to get together, share information, and strategize create communities that are healthy and free of toxic pesticides. For those who are unable to attend in person, these videos expand the incredible knowledge of the experts to the broader public to help inspire and inform community action.
Pollinators, Biodiversity and Scientific Integrity, by Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D. Dr. Lundgren is an agroecologist, director of ECDYSIS Foundation, and CEO for Blue Dasher Farm. Formerly a top U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) entomologist, he received a prestigious national award for civic courage  (Entomologist in the Crosshairs of Science  and Corporate Politics) for his work on neonicotinoids and pollinator decline in the face of agency attempts to suppress his work. One of his priorities is to make science applicable to end-users, and he regularly interacts with the public and farmers regarding pest management and insect biology.
Landmark Law: The case for local action, by Montgomery County, MD Councilmember George Leventhal. As Council President, Mr. Leventhal was the lead sponsor of the landmark ordinance, Bill 52-14, that protects children, pets, wildlife, and the wider environment from the hazards of unnecessary lawn and landscape pesticide. He wrote and championed the legislation, which restricts cosmetic pesticide use on lawns throughout the county —which is now the largest jurisdiction in the U.S. to do so on both private and public property.
Organic Practices and Policy: A view from Congress,U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree  was elected to represent Maine’s 1st district in the United States House of Representatives in 2008. AsMaine Magazine wrote, “Pingree can work hard. Give her any jobâ€â€chopping wood, planting a garden, canning vegetables, raising children, rewriting the U.S. Farm Billâ€â€and she’s your woman.â€
Pesticides and Diseases: What Do We Know and What Do We Need? by Aaron Blair, Ph.D. a National Cancer Institute researcher (emeritus), author of more than 450 publications on occupational and environmental causes of cancer,  and the overall chair of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) evaluation panel that found  glyphosate (Roundup) to be a carcinogen.
Organic Integrity: Soil, seeds and government responsibility, by Jim Gerritsen. an organic farmer who has owned and operated Wood Prairie Farm in northern Maine for 38 years, and president of the national farmer-run membership trade organization, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), which served as lead plaintiff in the landmark organic community federal lawsuit, OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto.
The Soil Will Save Us, by Kristin Ohlson, journalist and bestselling author. Her book, The Soil Will Save Us, makes an elegantly argued, passionate case for “our great green hope”â€â€a way in which we can not only heal the land but also turn atmospheric carbon into beneficial soil carbonâ€â€and potentially reverse global warming.
Ecological Tick Management Workshop, featuring Ron Circe, an ecologist and manager of the over 700 acre Banshee Reeks Nature Preserve in Loudoun County, VA, where he employs natural practices to successfully manage ticks; and Daniel Sonenshine, Ph.D., professor emeritus and eminent scholar of biological sciences at Old Dominion University, who researches tick pheromones, tick immunity and tick-borne diseases.
The Forum provides the opportunity for grassroots advocates, scientists, and policy makers to share efforts in building local, state and national strategies for strength and growth with its broad range of speakers and collaborators. Beyond Pesticides believes that sharing this information beyond the Forum as an educational and organizing tool will prove extremely valuable, and encourages folks to share presentations with friends, community organizations, networks, and state and local decision makers.
Beyond Pesticides thanks everyone who helped make the 34th National Pesticide Forum a success! The Forum, held April 15-16 at the University of Southern Maine, and was convened by Beyond Pesticides, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Toxics Action Center, and the USM Department of Environmental Science and Policy, and co-sponsored by a diverse range of local groups. For more details about the conference, download the program here, or see www.beyondpesticides.org/forum.
The playlist, which includes all of the available videos of the 2015 Forum, as well as previous conferences are available on Beyond Pesticides’ YouTube page.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2016) Following an apparent accidental release of documents relating to the safety of the herbicide glyphosate, late last month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also released and then retracted a preliminary ecological risk assessment of another toxic herbicide, atrazine. Under federal law, every pesticide registered in the United States is required to undergo a 15-year registration review to analyze human health and environmental impacts and determine whether the chemical’s use should continue another 15 years. The last decade and a half have seen plethora of studies underscoring that atrazine is harmful to human health, and poses unreasonable adverse risks to ecological health, despite attempts by its major manufacturer, Syngenta, to silence and discredit its critics.
EPA’s preliminary ecological risk assessment finds that for current uses at prescribed label rates, atrazine may pose a chronic risk to fish, amphibians, and aquatic vertebrate animals. Where use is heavy, the agency indicates that chronic exposure through built-up concentrations in waterways is likely to adversely impact aquatic plant communities.  Levels of concern, a wonky equation that EPA produces to measure risk, were exceeded for birds by 22x, fish by 62x, and mammals by 198x. Even reduced label rates were expected to harm terrestrial plant species as a result of runoff and drift from pesticide applications. It is important to note that these impacts were seen for uses which, based on data obtained during atrazine’s last review 15 years ago, EPA considered to be “safe†when used according to label rates.
Moreover, as part of what are known as data call-ins, where EPA requests tests used to support or reject the registration of a pesticide, the agency permits pesticide manufacturers to carry out studies on their own products. Shortly before atrazine’s most recent re-registration in 2003, University of California, Berkeley professor and scientist Tyrone Hayes, PhD was hired by Syngenta to conduct safety tests on the chemical regarding its impact on amphibian health. However, what he found was not what the company had hoped for: his experiments showed that atrazine could impede the sexual development of frogs, to put it lightly. After the company criticized his research, Dr. Hayes cut ties with the company. But he continued his research, this time releasing studies that described the effects of the chemical less gingerly, like the 2010 study, Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs,  published in the esteemed journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. During this time, Syngenta continued to target not only Dr. Hayes research, but his personal life. (See: A Valuable Reputation, by The New Yorker). Through the discovery process on a lawsuit launched by public water utilities over widespread atrazine contamination, a list of goals produced by Syngenta’s public relations was brought to light. Goal #1: “discredit Hayes.â€
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, particularly in humid climates like southern Florida. The chemical is still widely used in agriculture, with over 90% of the chemical’s application to corn fields. Upwards of 65% of sugarcane and sorghum fields are also sprayed with atrazine, according to EPA, and it is used widely in forestry operations. In addition to reproductive impacts on amphibians, as well as studies showing similar impacts to fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals (See: Protecting Life, From Research to Regulation), the chemical has been listed to human health impacts such as childhood cancer, and rare birth defects, including gastroschisis, and choanal atresia.
As a result of a lawsuit filed by  the Center for Biological Diversity, EPA will be assessing the impacts of atrazine and its chemical cousins to 1,500 endangered species, a task that the agency should have performed decades ago. Based on scientific evidence, there is no need to continue with the use of atrazine or glyphosate, especially with so many alternatives for pest management. In fact, a 2014 study published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found that banning atrazine would result in net economic benefit to farmers. EPA’s leaked ecological risk assessment, as well as the widespread availability of alternatives, shows that the risks of continuing atrazine’s registration vastly outweighs any benefits it may provide.
As consumers continue to press for reforms regarding allowed pesticides within conventional agricultural practices, the best way to support sustainable agriculture is by buying organic. Organic farmers are not permitted to use toxic synthetic herbicides or pesticides like atrazine, and must create an organic system plan to address how they will first prevent pest problems, and second, deal with them through least-toxic means should they arise. All inputs into organic farming and processing must go through a rigorous public process overseen by the National Organic Standards Board, composed of a range organic stakeholders. Although the process is not devoid of concerns, they pale in comparison to the widespread health and ecological impacts permitted in conventional agriculture.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 9, 2016) Beyond Pesticides joins a historic “civic mobilization” on May 23, 2016, alongside other citizen advocacy organizations leading in the fight to protect and improve human health and the environment. Breaking Through Power celebrates the 50th anniversary of Ralph Nader’s book Unsafe at Any Speed,  which unleashed fresh energies and sparked the creation of numerous advocacy organizations leading to major consumer, environmental and worker safety protections. This mobilization, organized by the Center for Study of Responsive Law, will be held at the Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. from May 23-26, 2016. Â
Beyond Pesticides members and friends are invited and encouraged to attend this important event to help launch the next decade of public interest advocacy. If you are interested, please let us know by contacting Jen Ruocco at [email protected].
Beyond Pesticides executive director, Jay Feldman, will be presenting during the first session, Breaking Through Power: How it’s Done, on May 23, 2016. As Beyond Pesticides celebrates 35 years, we are honored to be joining the diverse group of organizations that, “over decades…have produced amazing accomplishments against powerful odds.” In addition to joining the lineup of incredible speakers, Beyond Pesticides will also be tabling.
The theme of this “citizen mobilization” will be elaborating ways to break through power to secure long-overdue democratic solutions made possible by a new muscular civic nexus between local communities and Washington, D.C. On these four days, speakers will present innovative ideas and strategies designed to take existing civic groups to higher levels of effectiveness.
The event will involve thousands of people at Constitution Hall and around the country and aims to connect long-available knowledge to long-neglected action for the necessities and aspirations of people from all backgrounds. The event was the subject of a full-page ad in the New York Times (see copy to right), Saturday, May 7.
Day One â€â€ May 23, 2016 will feature an unprecedented series of presentations by seventeen successful citizen advocacy groups of long standing, that have made great accomplishments against powerful odds. These civic leaders will demonstrate how, with modest budgets and stamina, they have improved the health, safety and economic well-being of the people and focused public opinion onto decision-makers and opponents. Through greater visibility, broader support and wider emulation, they will present their future missions and show that it can be “easier than we think†to make major changes. For the first time ever, this diverse group of fighters for justice will be assembled together on stage at Constitution Hall and show that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts when fighting for a broader democratic society. The presenters will appraise what levels of citizen organization is necessary to fulfill these broadly-desired missions.
Day Two — May 24, 2016 brings together a large gathering of authors, documentary filmmakers, reporters, columnists, musicians, poets and editorial cartoonists who will demonstrate the need for wider audiences over the mass media.
Day Three — May 25, 2016 will be dedicated to enhancing the waging of peace over the waging of war, assembling leading scholars having military and national security backgrounds such as ret. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State, Colin Powell, veterans groups such as Veterans For Peace, and long-time peace advocacy associations to explain how peace is more powerful than war.
Day Four â€â€ May 26, 2016 will unveil a new Civic Agenda (much of which has Left/Right support) that could be advanced by engaged and enraged citizens in each Congressional district. The agenda includes recognized necessities ignored by Congress for decades and will be presented by a veritable brain trust of recognized advocates for the well-being of present and future generations.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2016) Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a long  awaited review of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, concluding that the chemical is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans —then the agency removed the review from its website. After  pulling the report, the agency stated that the document was not final. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released its findings that show  glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen.
The 86-page report was published Friday on  regulations.gov by EPA’s cancer assessment review committee (CARC) and was reviewed  by Reuters. While the report finds  that glyphosate is  not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, EPA told Reuters that it took the action it did because the assessment was not final. According to Reuters, “The agency said the documents were â€Ëœpreliminary’ and that they were published â€Ëœinadvertently.’†But, a cover memo, which was part of the assessment, described the report as CARC’s final cancer assessment document. “Final†was printed on each page of the report, which was dated October 1, 2015. This only furthers speculation that EPA has concluded that it will  renew glyphosate’s registration. The European Union has indicated that it  will re-approve glyphosate’s registration,  despite fierce public outcry.
Glyphosate has been subject to widespread public scrutiny since IARC classified it as a 2A probable carcinogen  based on animal studies.  A  scientific review  was released in February 2016 by a group of 14  scientists, which expressed concern about the widespread use of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), the lack of understanding regarding human exposure, and the potential health impacts. According to the report, U.S. agencies, such as the National Toxicology Program, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and EPA, have not adequately kept up with cutting-edge research. The researchers call for the global science and regulatory community to step back and take a fresh look at glyphosate due to widespread exposure patterns.
Glyphosate residues have been detected in foods and products that are not typically associated with heavy glyphosate use, or even in organic foods and products, in which the use of glyphosate is prohibited. In March 2016,  Moms Across America released a report  on glyphosate residues in California wines. The  report  finds  that all of the ten wines test positive for glyphosate. Other recent reports of the widespread presence of glyphosate residues find the chemical in  breast milk,  in German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and  bread, as well as  in nearly 100% of Germans  tested.
While glyphosate is touted as a “low toxicity†chemical and “safer†than other chemicals by industry, it has been shown to have  detrimental impacts  on humans and the environment. Given its widespread use on residential and agricultural sites, its toxicity is of increasing concern. A mounting body of data has found that formulated glyphosate (Roundup) products are more toxic than the active ingredient, glyphosate, alone. Roundup formulations can induce a dose-dependent formation of DNA adducts (altered forms of DNA linked to chemical exposure, playing a key role in chemical carcinogenesis) in the kidneys and liver of mice. Human cell endocrine disruption on the androgen receptor, inhibition of transcriptional activities on estrogen receptors on HepG2, DNA damage and cytotoxic effects occurring at concentrations well below “acceptable†residues have all been observed.  A 2008 study  confirmed that the ingredients in Roundup formulations kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells, even at very low concentrations, and causes total cell death within 24 hrs.
Two days ago, a large coalition of national organizations delivered over 500,000 petitions to EPA that demands an end to glyphosate use in the U.S. The groups held a rally outside the White House before marching over to EPA headquarters. The event, organized by Moms Across America and Care2, was also joined by Beyond Pesticides, Organic Consumers Association, Friends of the Earth, SumOfUs, and CREDO Action.
It has previously been announced that U.S. federal testing will  begin for glyphosate residues in food. Although a positive step, this move is largely seen as political — a response to growing public pressure and not focused on evaluating health concerns. Beyond Pesticides urges individuals concerned about glyphosate exposure to support organic systems that do not rely on hazardous carcinogenic pesticides. In agriculture, concerned consumers can  buy food with the certified organic label, which not only disallows synthetic pesticides like glyphosate, but also the use of sewage sludge and genetically engineered ingredients. Instead of prophylactic use of pesticides and biotechnology, responsible organic farms focus on fostering habitat for pest predators and other beneficial insects, and only resort to judicious use of least-toxic pesticides when other cultural, structural, mechanical, and biological controls have been attempted and proven ineffective.
(Beyond Pesticides, May 5, 2016) Yesterday, a large coalition of national organizations delivered over 500,000 petitions to EPA that demands an end to glyphosate use in the U.S. The groups held a rally outside the White House before marching over to EPA headquarters. The event, organized by Moms Across America and Care2, was also joined by Beyond Pesticides, Organic Consumers Association, Friends of the Earth, SumOfUs, and CREDO Action. Glyphosate  is a pervasive and toxic chemical found in Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller and was classified by the  International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)  as a probable human carcinogen in 2015.
This comes the week after news reports of the European Union indicating it  will re-approve glyphosate’s registration in the EU,  despite fierce public outcry, for another 10 years. Because EPA has not changed its classification of glyphosate as “not likely to be a carcinogen,” it is expected that  EPA will renew the registration  of glyphosate. (The report concluding that glyphosate is not likely  to be carcinogenic to humans was posted online  by EPA on Friday,  but taken down  the following Monday, pending the agency’s completion of its reevaluation.)
“The current science confirms that glyphosate and Roundup are anything but safe. This probable carcinogen has no place on our lawns or foods. We have safer, alternative methods of managing our lawns and growing food that do not rely on glyphosate or other toxic inputs. It is time that EPA recognizes its responsibility to move away from hazardous and unnecessary pesticides,†says Nichelle Harriott, science and regulatory director of Beyond Pesticides.
Glyphosate residues have been detected in foods and products that are not typically associated with heavy glyphosate use, or even in organic foods and products, in which the use of glyphosate is prohibited. In March 2016,  Moms Across America released a report  on glyphosate residues in California wines. The  report  finds  that all of the ten wines test positive for glyphosate. Other recent reports of the widespread presence of glyphosate residues find the chemical in  breast milk,  in German beers,  feminine hygiene products, and  bread, as well as  in nearly 100% of Germans  tested.
A  scientific review  was released in February 2016 by a group of 14  scientists, who expressed concern about the widespread use of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs), the lack of understanding regarding human exposure, and the potential health impacts. According to the report, U.S. agencies, such as the National Toxicology Program, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and EPA, have not adequately kept up with cutting-edge research. The researchers call for the global science and regulatory community to step back and take a fresh look at glyphosate due to widespread exposure patterns.
Beyond Pesticides advocates for a regulatory approach  that prohibits high hazard chemical use and calls for alternative assessments. The organization  suggests 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.
In 2008, EPA granted Bayer a “conditional†registration for flubendiamide, a classification that allows a new pesticide to be registered and used in the field, despite outstanding data points on its toxicological impact. In this case, original data submitted to EPA by Bayer showed concern over the effect of the chemical and its breakdown product on freshwater benthic invertebrates, species such as crustaceans and aquatic insects that  live in stream sediment and provide important ecosystem services such as decomposition and nutrient cycling. In response, rather than declining to proceed with registration of the chemical, EPA negotiated a deal with Bayer to conditionally register the chemical for five  years with additional label restrictions, while it waited for more  data on the harm to benthic species.
Last September, the  
This year, to help increase education and bring awareness to the issue of pollinator declines, Beyond Pesticides and the Center for Food Safety are teaming up with several Washington, DC area restaurants to launch a “Made by Pollinators†campaign. Participating  restaurants, which include Founding Farmers, Lavagna, Tabard Inn and Restaurant Nora, will  educate the public on the importance of pollinators in our daily lives by marking up their  menus to show patrons how many of their favorite dishes contain ingredients that rely on pollinators  for production. Currently, one out of every three bites of food we take requires pollination, a fact these environmentally conscious restaurants will impart on the public as they dine during National Pollinator Week 2016.
Researchers collected pollen from Indiana honey bee hives at three sites over 16 weeks. The hives were placed in a variety of settings, such as an open meadow with wildflowers, woody shrubs and trees present (non-agricultural), the border of a corn field that was treated with the neonicotinoid clothianidin and three fungicides, and the border of a non-treated corn field. The pollen samples that were collected by the bees represented up to 30 plant families and contained residues from pesticides spanning nine chemical classes. The researchers found 29 pesticides in pollen from the meadow site, 29 pesticides in pollen from the treated cornfield, and 31 pesticides in pollen from the untreated cornfield. The most common chemical products found in pollen from each site were fungicides and herbicides, typical crop disease and weed management products. Of the insecticides that were found, in addition to neonicotinoids, the highest concentrations in the bee pollen were pyrethroids, typically used to control mosquitoes.
76 Toxic Substances Control Act
The 
The plan for a release of these GE mosquitoes has been in the works for a while. In February 2015, 
Meanwhile, with the surge in genetically engineered crops, pesticide use is increasing exponentially, as herbicide use increased 4 to 18% a year, depending on the crop, over the last decade, while weed and insect resistance is growing rapidly —threatening productivity. Twenty-four species of weeds in 29 states and worldwide now exhibit resistance to the most widely used herbicide, Roundup (glyphosate).
“In a brazenly political act, the Republican leadership is trying to mask gutting the Clean Water Act as having something to do with fighting Zika,†Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), said in a statement to 
The Guardian disclosed, “
This marks the second year in a row that summer declines (28.1%) were on par with declines experienced during winter. Beekeepers factor in that a small percentage, <15% of their colonies, will be lost each winter, but do not expect to lose colonies during the summer, when there is amble forage and nectar for bees. The costs beekeepers must incur to keep their hives alive continue to increase. More time and money is spent to maintain their hives, yet losses continue to be staggering â€â€ and unsustainable.
Researchers conducting the study  looked at 156 patients with ALS and 128 without the disease. Participants were asked about occupational and residential exposure to environmental toxicants  and blood samples were taken to measure their concentrations. Researchers found that the organochlorine pesticides pentachlorobenzene and cis-chlordane increased ALS risk two-fold and nearly six-fold, respectively.
The study, 
Macalester is now one of several campuses around the country that have pledged to protect pollinators and move away from using harmful pesticides that are toxic to these beneficial creatures. Just last month, Â 
EPA’s 
long-available knowledge to long-neglected action for the necessities and aspirations of people from all backgrounds. The event was the subject of a full-page ad in the New York Times (see copy to right), Saturday, May 7.
This comes the week after news reports of the European Union indicating it  will re-approve glyphosate’s registration in the EU,  
