(Beyond Pesticides, October 12, 2016) German chemical company Bayer said it would not introduce genetically engineered (GE) crops in Europe after its historic takeover of U.S. seed and pesticide producer Monsanto. The European Union (EU) has been skeptical of GE crops, with many countries refusing to approve certain varieties of them. However, in the U.S., where GE crops make up about half of the crops grown, the merger will probably have little to no effect on GE use.

Last month, St. Louis-based agrichemical giant  Monsanto Co. agreed to sell the company  to German pharmaceutical and chemical conglomerate, Bayer, in  an unprecedented $66 billion dollar deal. This takeover of the U.S. firm is the biggest ever by a German company. The combination would create a global agricultural and chemical giant ””and bring Bayer together with a leading producer of genetically engineered seeds that are engineered to resist pesticides, particularly Monsanto’s flagship product, Roundup.

Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate, is used alongside various GE crops including corn and soybeans. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a landmark  report naming glyphosate as  “probably carcinogenic to humans.” Glyphosate’s EU license was set to expire this year, and some member states including France, Sweden, and the Netherlands objected to the renewal. A vote to reauthorize usage of glyphosate on a temporary basis failed in June 2016. However, glyphosate’s license was extended for 18 months  just as it was about to expire. The next re-evaluation of the license is scheduled at  the end of 2017. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is convening a Scientific Advisory Panel next week to evaluate glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential, even though the agency is proposing to classify glyphosate as not likely to be carcinogenic.

Bayer CEO Werner Baumann was quoted Monday as telling German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung: “We don’t want to take over Monsanto in order to establish genetically modified plants in Europe.” He added, “If politics and society in Europe don’t want genetically modified seeds, then we accept that, even if we disagree on the substance.”

This stance not to force GE on Europeans may stem from concerns from Bayer on assuming Monsanto’s tarnished reputation, which dates back to its production of the Agent Orange defoliant used by U.S. forces in the Vietnam War. According to reports, Bayer had begun discussions about whether to dump the Monsanto name upon the merger’s closing. Bayer is reportedly looking to avoid “sullying its reputation” as it is looking to expand its European operations by building consumer trust. However, Bayer also faces close scrutiny over its own pesticides —the neonicotinoids, identified as  contributing to mass die-offs of bees.

The companies say that the takeover will contribute to chemical and agricultural research and eventually will help farmers to produce more food. However, critics express concerns that the merger will only tighten a monopolist grip on markets, and will lead to price increases, lack of availability of non-GE and non-treated seed, increased GE crops, and growing reliance on toxic pesticides.

The merger is not set in stone, however. Several steps  must take place  before the deal can be finalized. Federal regulators would have to give the go-ahead for the deal, as would  the European Commission, which generally opposes the use of GE seeds, an area of specialization for Monsanto. Similarly, chemical giants DuPont and Dow Chemical are also slated to merge, with their boards of directors unanimously  approved the merger of their companies  through an all-stock deal, valuing the combined market capitalization at $130 billion.  In February 2016,  China National Chemical Corp. acquired Syngenta AG, and then cleared a major hurdle to the merger this past August when the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) gave the  go-ahead  for the merger to move forward, a deal worth nearly $43 million.

Observers say that in the long-term, markets will reveal that relying on the promotion of chemical-intensive agricultural practices is not a sustainable business practice. Chemical-intensive agriculture depends on chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides that have been shown to  reduce soil organic matter and decrease the diversity of soil biota. These chemical inputs contaminate waterways, leading to eutrophication and “dead zones,” where nothing is able to live or grow. 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.

If you oppose the Bayer-Monsanto merger, please consider reaching out to your  Senators  or  Representative  to ask them to reject the approval of a merger that consolidates seed availability, and encourage them instead to focus on increasing the availability of organic seeds, which do not negatively affect  soil, water or human health.

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

Source: RT

(Beyond Pesticides, October 11, 2016) Last week, in a calculated attack on the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC), the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Oversight and Government Reform summoned the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to answer questions about taxpayer contributions to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer agency. From reports, it is easy to gather that the committee has problems with IARC scientists’ findings that glyphosate, among other things, is a probable  carcinogen. Led by Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the hearing is  clearly aimed at  undermining IARC’s March 2015 listing of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity  found in laboratory studies.

Set to take place in private, limiting any opportunity for public oversight, the hearing will consist of NIH officials answering questions on the scientific processes and public funding from politically-charged committee investigators. If Rep. Chaffetz is persuasive in this rouse against science, he stands to put in jeopardy  a significant amount funding for IARC provided by NIH, a devastating outcome for individuals who value the importance of IARC’s work in the scientific community.

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

In defending IARC’s previous findings, IARC director Christopher Wild, Ph.D. rejected Rep. Chaffetz’ criticisms and defended IARC’s findings, known as “monographs,” as “widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process and. . .freedom from conflicts of interest.” He also pointed to IARC’s willingness to adjust these monographs to be consistent with future findings, as they did with coffee, as evidence that IARC is solely concerned with uncovering the truth, not pushing any sort of hidden agenda. Coffee was classified “no conclusive evidence for a carcinogenic effect” after an original listing  as “possibly carcinogenic” based on a  reevaluation  using additional science. The intentions of IARC’s scientists are further supported by comments from Aaron Blair, Ph.D., a National Cancer Institute researcher, author of more than 450 publications on occupational and environmental causes of cancer,  and chair of IARC’s evaluation panel that found  glyphosate (Roundup) to be a carcinogen. Dr. Blair  spoke at Beyond Pesticides 34^th National Pesticide Forum. His full remarks on the subject can be viewed here.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time that  the U.S. government has tried to stifle scientific findings in order to its own position or that of the regulated industry.  In 2015, one of the top entomologists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)  filed a whistleblower complaint  against a  federal agency, citing unprofessional retaliation following the publication of a  study  linking neonicotinoid insecticides to the decline of monarch butterflies. Jonathan Lundgren, Ph.D., senior research entomologist and lab supervisor for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in South Dakota, faced suspension for publishing research deemed “sensitive” by his USDA superior, underscoring why legal protections for government scientists are sorely needed.

A similar attack was waged on Harvard educated biologist and professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, Tyrone Hayes,  Ph.D.  by the chemical industry. In a study funded by Navartis Agribusiness, Dr. Hayes’ research found that the herbicide atrazine feminizes male frogs and that amphibian species are in decline because of its pervasive use. Dr. Hayes’ work showed that current regulatory reviews allow widespread use of pesticides that cause serious adverse effects well below allowable legal standards and when in mixtures not studied. When Novartis Agribusiness, one of two corporations that would later form Syngenta and the maker of atrazine, found out that Dr. Hayes’ findings contradicted its  expected or desired outcome, Dr. Hayes was criticized by the company, which withdrew its funding. Dr. Hayes continued his research with independent funding and found more of the same results: exposure to doses of atrazine as small as 0.1 parts per billion (below allowed regulatory limits) turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites —organisms with both male and female sexual characteristics. When his work appeared in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sygenta attacked the study, starting an epic feud between the scientist and the corporation. In fact, a June 2013 investigative report by 100Reporters and Environmental Health News exposed the chemical giant’s multi-million dollar campaign to discredit atrazine critics. This undermining of scientific research led Beyond Pesticides to develop the Fund for Independent Science.

The Fund for Independent Science was developed to act as a mechanism for raising substantial dollars from those who support independent scientific research to inform sound public policy that protects health and the environment. Independent scientists are needed  to understand the toxicology of chemicals that are allowed to be introduced into the environment and the  food supply. This information is critical to influence state and local decision makers to act because of industry-dominated regulatory decisions, such as The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs’ counter determination that glyphosate does not cause cancer. Building systems that are not reliant on toxic inputs requires continual understanding of the destructive capacity of toxic materials in commerce and the sustainable practices that can replace them in the marketplace.

With independent science both in and outside of the U.S., including IARC, pointing to a growing list of impacts from pesticides and genetically engineered (GE) crops, ranging from the  decline of bees  to the carcinogenicity of the widely used herbicide glyphosate, it is critical that federal scientific agencies tasked with protecting human and environmental health be able to inform the public without repercussions from industry groups, which have a vested interest widespread marketing of their toxic products. Additionally, while public oversight can be a positive thing,  Rep.  Chaffetz’ efforts to limit NIH funding for IARC must be viewed in context, with an eye toward his ties to the agrichemical industry. For more information, see Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility’s (PEER)  pattern of science manipulation at USDA. To see the history of industry influence in federal agencies, visit  this link  to our Daily News Blog.

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

Source: Reuters

(Beyond Pesticides, October 7, 2016) For the first time in U.S. history, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has added a group of bees to the list of Endangered Species. FWS published a final rule last Friday that  declares seven species of yellow-faced bees (genus Hylaeus) that are native to Hawaii as endangered. This announcement immediately follows last week’s news that FWS has proposed listing the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

While the decision is great news for these bees and the environmental groups who have fought to protect them, there is still much work that needs to be done, and FWS says that it needs additional time to identify specific areas to be designated as critical habitat for the endangered bees. Further, though FWS has identified many threats to bees, including habitat loss and degradation due to urbanization, and other human activities, the final rule does not specifically point to pesticides. However, there is an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that neonicotinoid insecticides, working either individually or synergistically, play a critical role in the ongoing decline of bees and other pollinators.

Neonicotinoids have been linked to a range of both acute and chronic effects on pollinators. Studies have found the insecticides can adversely affect reproduction, impair pollination, and alter behavior. Once these chemicals are used in the environment, their persistence and long half-life means that they remain a problem for beekeepers well into the future.

This final rules comes one year to the day since the proposed rule was published, and following a multi-year effort by the Xerces Society, which  submitted petitions to FWS in March 2009, to gain recognition and protection for these bees. According to Xerces, these bees are often found in small patches of habitat connected by agricultural land or developments. There is only one genus of bees that is native to the Hawaiian Islands, Hylaeus, commonly called yellow-faced bees because of colored markings on their faces.

These bees are often found in small patches of habitat hemmed in by agricultural land or developments. This is particularly troubling as Hawaii’s year-round growing conditions have made it a prime target for agrichemical companies to test new, experimental forms of genetically engineered (GE) crops, which brings with it increased pesticide use. Data released last year reveals that  high levels of restricted use pesticides, in some cases almost double the pounds per acre average of other states, are being used in Kauai County. A May 2014 report  found 25 herbicides, 11 insecticides and 6 fungicides in Hawaii’s waterways, underscoring concerns for ecological health. Further, a study published earlier this year found that even when attempting to protect pollinators by planting pollinator habitat and hedgerows around conventional farms, neonicotinoids used onsite can make their way into flowering crops in field margins, putting pollinators in danger.

For these reasons and many others, Beyond Pesticides works to promote the widespread transition of conventional farmland to organic production. With one in three bites of food reliant on pollination from bees,  other insects, and birds, the decline in pollinators due to pesticides, and other human-made causes, demands immediate action. For help on how you can get involved to reverse pollinator declines, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage. And for more information on why organic is the right path for the future of agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Agriculture program page.

Sources: FWS, Xerces

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 6, 2016) According to a report published last week by the Iowa Environmental Council (IEC), the associations between elevated levels of nitrate in drinking water and health risks go well beyond the “blue-baby syndrome” and nitrate concentrations lower than the drinking water standard may be harmful through long-term exposure. The lead author of the report, Ann Robinson, Agricultural Policy Specialist at IEC, stated that the focus was on “significant findings that multiple studies have associated with nitrate in drinking water, including birth defects, bladder cancer and thyroid cancer.”  Nitrate is a common groundwater contaminant that is sourced mainly from chemical fertilizers and animal waste.

Nitrate is a common contaminant of drinking water, particularly in agricultural areas where nitrogen fertilizers are used. In 1962, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L of nitrate to prevent blue baby syndrome, a fatal infant blood disease. In addition to Iowa, the U.S. Geological Survey has also identified the following states as areas with high risk clusters from nitrate contamination to groundwater: Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

The report reviewed studies conducted in the U.S., Canada, and Australia that found statistically significant associations between elevated levels of nitrate in drinking water and birth defects including neural tube defects such as spina bifida, oral cleft defects, limb deficiencies, and other skeletal system deformities. Studies conducted in Iowa, Spain, Germany, and Taiwan all reported similar increased risk for bladder cancer when nitrate concentrations in drinking water increased. And finally, two large long-term studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health concluded that there was an increased risk for thyroid cancer with increased intake of nitrate through drinking water and other sources.

Ann Robinson said in a statement that, “While more research is needed, the current findings offer compelling reasons to accelerate efforts to reduce pollution from nitrate flowing into our surface and ground water from farm fields, urban yards, livestock facilities, water treatment plants and other sources.” High rates of fertilizer application may also increase the natural nitrate levels found in certain vegetables, such as lettuce and root crops. Prior research has indicated that long-term exposure to nitrates through food and water may increase the risk of thyroid disease. In the body, nitrate competes with uptake of iodide by the thyroid, thus potentially affecting thyroid function.

Iowa has been at the center of a growing debate about synthetic fertilizer use and the harmful effects caused by high nitrate levels in drinking water systems. This heavily agricultural state relies on a tile drainage system running under millions of acres of land that initially transformed the swampy land into highly productive farmland. This tile system is extremely problematic when it comes to non-point source pollution from nitrates, which leach into Iowa’s waterways by way of the drainage pipes. This issue has received heightened attention following the Des Moines Water Works lawsuit against three drainage districts in northwest Iowa over the high nitrate levels in the city’s water supply. Additionally, Iowa is a leading contributor to the nutrient pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus that contributes to the large “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

State and federal officials must address the root of the problem””including the extreme levels of nutrient buildup and the dangerous amount of nitrogen and phosphorus found in the water, caused by excess fertilization runoff from both chemically-intensive agricultural and residential sources. Drinking water treatment, which has been advocated for by some, is a short-term, band-aid option to a problem that is persistent and must be addressed through preventive, long-term solutions. Beyond Pesticides has long supported “feed-the-soil” approaches to all types of landscape management. Understanding the role of healthy soils in creating healthy landscapes and plants, Beyond Pesticides promotes a systems approach that centers on management of soil health and proper fertilization that eliminates synthetic fertilizers and focuses on building the soil food web and nurturing soil microorganisms.

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

Source: Iowa Environmental Council, TakePart

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 4, 2016) Last week, the  Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) approved 26 licences for 26 recreational marijuana retailers as well as modified state rules regarding state licensure testing requirements and packaging limitations. According to a OLCC press release, some of the marijuana retailers began operating on October 1st, fulfilling the OLCC’s promise to Oregon’s citizens that recreational marijuana stores would be open for business in fall 2016.

OAR 845-025-5700 previously required that all batches be tested for pesticides. Under the new Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Temporary Pesticide Rules (“Limited Batch Testing”) OAR 845-025-5700, effective September 30, 2016 until March 1, 2017, the OLCC requires a minimum of 33.3% of batches per harvest lot of cannabis to be tested. According to OAR 333-007-0010, if the OLCC finds that there is not enough laboratory capacity for pesticide testing, the Commission may permit randomly chosen samples from batches of usable marijuana to be tested for pesticides by a licensed lab, rather than requiring every batch of usable marijuana from a harvest lot to be tested. If any part of those samples fails pesticide testing, every 10-pound lot is required to be tested. If the samples that are tested all passed, the entire harvest lot is considered “passed,” and may be transferred or sold.

Oregon Governor Kate Brown said in a news release on September 30, “Based on what we have learned from the nationwide legalization effort, it is more important than ever to ensure certain products that make it to shelves are free from pesticides and contaminants.”

In July, the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), in an effort to curb the use of illegal pesticides in cannabis production, issued 12 notices of statewide detainment and stop sale and removal orders for horticultural pesticide products that contain active ingredients not listed on the label. This raised serious public health, statutory, and regulatory compliance concerns, pushing ODA to make pesticide testing more of a priority. Oregon’s guide list for pesticide products allowed for use in the production of cannabis contains 313 pesticide products, and aligns with similar product lists published by Washington State and Colorado. This list raises concerns over the lack of health evaluations of public exposure to the pesticides used. The list construes broad label language to allow the use of pesticide products that have not been specifically tested for use on marijuana, despite the fact that the EPA has not registered or reviewed any pesticide product for use on cannabis. For example, one ingredient approved through these standards that raises a red flag when it comes to human health and safety is the synergist piperonyl butoxide (PBO), which is often mixed with pesticides to increase their potency.

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and OLCC decided not to change the packaging and labeling standards for new products, yet instead allow licensees who do not have pre-approved packaging and labels to use generic packaging and labeling until their packaging is approved by the OLCC. The OLCC did, however, pass a temporary rule that prohibits wording that is deemed “attractive to minors,” as defined in OAR 845-025-7000(1).

In early September, King County in Washington State, proposed creating their own program that would test marijuana for prohibited pesticides. In the absence of state and federal testing programs to keep consumers safe, King County stands to be the first local jurisdiction to take protecting marijuana consumers from the potential harms of toxic chemicals into their own hands.

In Washington State, it took nearly two years after the first legal retail sales of marijuana before 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. The move by Washington followed widespread cannabis recalls in the City of Denver, and actions from Colorado’s Governor to declare pesticide-tainted cannabis “a threat to public safety,” highlighting the ongoing struggle of states to regulate marijuana despite its federal status as a Schedule I drug.

Beyond Pesticides is urging states to prohibit registered pesticides in cannabis production, given the lack of testing for increased exposure through inhalation, ingestion, and skin absorption. 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 long as they do not have a tolerance established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 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.

For more information and background on this important issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ report: Pesticide Use in Marijuana Production: Safety Issues and Sustainable Options.

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

Source: Cannabis Business Times, Oregon Live

(Beyond Pesticides, October 4, 2016) Chemicals previously used as  inert ingredients in pesticide formulations have been detected in a wide range of North American wildlife species, according to research published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. The compounds, perfluroalkyl phosphinic acids (PFPIAs), were widely used as anti-foaming agents in pesticide formulations until 2006, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took regulatory action to cancel  their use, citing “human health and environmental risks of concern.” However, the chemicals continue to be used today in consumer goods, including carpet cleaning formulas.

While scientists did not find what they would consider high concentrations of the chemicals in wildlife, the ubiquity of the detections was found to be most concerning. Researchers detected the presence of PFPIAs in the blood of 100% of animals sampled. This includes northern pike in Montreal, Canada, cormorants from the Great Lakes, and bottlenose dolphins from Sarasota Bay, Florida. “We aimed for diversity: air-breathing versus water-breathing, differences in habitat, different taxonomic groups,” Amila O. De Silva, PhD, coauthor of the study, said to CNN. Part of the reason for the wide range of detection lies with the properties of these chemicals. They are highly stable and resist degradation from exposure to water or sunlight, or breakdown by microbes. Dr. De Silva indicated to CNN that the usual ways that the environment remediates chemicals “don’t seem to apply” to PFPIAs.

“Previous work by other scientists in three separate publications have shown perfluorophosphinic acids are found in human blood samples from North America and Germany,” Dr. De Silva continued to CNN. Dr. De Silva’s previous research detected the presence of PFPIAs in 83% of household dust samples from homes sampled in Toronto, Canada.

The widespread presence of these little known persistent organic pollutants is cause for concern for regulators and the public. While limited research has been conducted to look for these compounds, even less is known about its toxicity and effects on humans, wildlife, or the wider environment. In EPA’s 2006 determination to remove these chemicals from pesticide products, the agency stated, “The very limited information available to the Agency indicates that there may be serious human health and environmental risk issues associated with these compounds.”

Despite the widespread presence of these chemicals and concern among U.S. regulators, these compounds have likely been used in pesticide formulations since the 1970s, according to Zhanyun Wang, PhD, a German scientist and expert on perfluroalkyl chemicals interviewed by CNN. This information is difficult to uncover however, because manufacturers are not required to disclose data on inert ingredients in pesticide products, despite the fact that they may be more toxic than the active ingredient in a pesticide or create hazardous synergistic interactions between it and the active ingredient or other inert ingredients.

In 2006, Beyond Pesticides and allies petitioned EPA to require manufacturers to disclose inert ingredients in pesticide product formulations. In 2009, the agency responded and took steps toward inert ingredient disclosure, publishing a proposed rule in the federal register. However, the agency took no action after proposing the rule. In 2014, the coalition filed an “undue delay” complaint against EPA, but was met with resistance. EPA backtracked on its original intent to require disclosure, and the lawsuit was thrown out because the agency indicated it would no longer issue rulemaking.

The agency instead released a list of 72 inert ingredients it had already discontinued from use in pesticide formulations. The proposal failed to address the issue of disclosure for 300 other inert ingredients allowed in pesticide formulations, but did indicate the past use of hazardous compounds, such as rotenone, turpentine oil, and cresol.

In response to this insufficient action, Beyond Pesticides and allies sued the agency again, charging that EPA’s current allowance for voluntary disclosure of inert ingredients does not protect the public or the environment. However, a federal court ruling handed down this past June stated that, “The EPA has no mandatory duty to require disclosure of “inert” ingredients in pesticides, even if those ingredients qualify as hazardous chemicals under separate statutes.”

Consumers are becoming increasingly wary of products with toxic ingredients, driving a huge shift towards ”˜greener’ technologies. More and more consumers are choosing least-toxic product alternatives for pest management that are exempt from federal pesticide registration and considered minimum risk by EPA. With these products, all ingredients, including inerts, must be disclosed.  This, coupled with a growing organic market, offers opportunities and challenges for formulators to develop and market least-toxic products with minimum risk pesticides that may be compatible with low hazard standards, such as organic, and consumer expectations.

Source: CNN, Environmental Science and Technology

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

(Beyond Pesticides, October 3, 2016) On Friday, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) released a rule titled, Pesticide Use Near Schoolsites, that proposes limited restrictions for certain agricultural pesticide applications near schools and child day care facilities. CDPR, whose proposal  has been criticized by advocates as not adequately protective of workers and communities, is accepting public comments on the proposal until November 17, 2016.

The  proposed rule, effective October 1, 2017, will require farmers to notify public schools and child day care facilities when “certain pesticide applications made for the production of an agricultural commodity near a school site are planned in the coming year and also a few days prior to the applications.” For pesticides applied via aircraft, airblast sprayer, sprinkler chemigation, and fumigation, there must be a minimum ¼  mile buffer around the school or child day care facility. While the move by CDPR is a step in the right direction, it is not rigorous enough and does not adequately protect the most vulnerable populations from pesticide exposure, according to advocates. The rule does not include private K-12 schools or family day care homes, a move that according to CDPR documents is due to the potential for increased costs to businesses and regulated entities. Additionally, the rule only applies to pesticide application activities Monday through Friday, during the hours of 6am to 6pm. Advocates say that these are unacceptable holes in this proposed rule and must be addressed before the final rule is published.

California officials told the Associated Press that “roughly 34 people were sickened in five instances throughout the state between 2005 and 2014 when pesticides drifted onto campuses, demonstrating a need for stricter regulations.” The rule will cover 3,500 schools and day cares and affect approximately 2,500 growers in California.

The stakes are high for families living in the Central Valley of California, where agricultural pesticide use is widespread. According to a 2014 report by the California Department of Public Health, Fresno, Tulare, and San Joaquin counties having the highest numbers of schools within ¼ mile of pesticide application. Additionally, of the top 10 pesticides applied within ¼ mile of the schools assessed, 6 are restricted use and all have been associated with at least one negative effect on children’s health, including cancer, endocrine disruption, developmental delays, and neurotoxicity. California schools began implementing new pesticide reporting and use requirements at the beginning of 2015. All schools and child day care centers statewide are now required to report their annual use of pesticides to CDPR.

While the new limits and restrictions are a step in the right direction, farmworker and advocacy groups believe that more needs to be done, as they fall short of scientists’ recommendations. Increased buffer zones may provide some reprieve from pesticide trespass, but it will not eliminate health concerns for children in the region. Virginia Zaunbrecher, JD, of UCLA’s Science and Technology program remarked to Fresno Bee earlier this year, “In general, a buffer zone is going to decrease exposure, but it’s not going to eliminate exposure.” Beyond Pesticides has long encouraged a minimum two mile buffer zone for agricultural pesticide use around sensitive areas. The proposed rule does create a route of communication and notification for when pesticide applications will be taking place, which is an important component for communities.

More than a decade ago, six families filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that details the dangerous levels of pesticides at Latino public schools throughout California that exposed Latino kids to chemicals linked to cancer, birth defects, neurodevelopmental disorders and other serious health problems. The complaint urged EPA to enforce the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funds from engaging in discriminatory practices. In 2011, as a result of a settlement agreement EPA reached with CDPR, EPA found that CDPR’s past renewal of the toxic fumigant methyl bromide discriminated against Latino school children whose schools are located near agriculture fields, conceding that unintentional adverse and disproportionate impact on Latino children resulting from the use of methyl bromide during that period could have occurred. Little was done to remedy these exposures and so a lawsuit was filed in 2013 against EPA’s continuing failure to protect Latino students. The case was subsequently moved for dismissal in federal court in part due to lack of jurisdiction. Methyl bromide is still widely used in California to grow strawberries, despite its ban under the Montreal Protocol, but it will no longer be eligible for a critical use exemption after 2016.

Ultimately, what is needed to truly protect community health is a transition away from toxic pesticides toward agricultural practices which promote pest resilience and eliminate  the need for toxic chemicals. A wide variety of alternative practices and products are available to assist growers in preventing pest problems before they start. Organic agriculture, which requires farmers to improve soil health and craft an organic system plan to guide pest control decisions, represents a viable path forward for agriculture in California and beyond.

Any interested person may present comments in writing about the proposed action by the CDPR to the agency contact, Linda Irokawa-Otani. Written comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 17, 2016. Comments regarding this proposed action may also be transmitted via e−mail to [email protected] or by fax to 916−324−1491.

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

Source: Associated Press

(Beyond Pesticides, September 30, 2016) Stand up for organic! The public comment period has opened on the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) proposed recommendations affecting  organic standards, materials and policy. The fall 2016 meeting dates have been announced and public comments are due by October 26, 2016. Your comments and participation are critical to the integrity of the organic label. Make your voice heard before the comment period closes. We’ve made tremendous progress in creating an organic food production system. Let’s not let USDA turn back the clock.

Beyond Pesticides has  begun to analyze the numerous recommendations and are providing you  with our positions that we hope you will use as the basis for your comments. We will provide positions on additional topics in the near future. Please feel free to develop your own comments or cut and paste ours. If you cut and paste our comments into regulations.gov, please first put a personal note of concern in order to reflect the importance if these issues to you as an organic consumer, farmer or other concerned party.

Some of the major issues before the fall 2016 National Organic Standards Board include:

• Chlorine Dioxide Gas: Beyond Pesticides is appalled that the NOSB Handling Subcommittee (HS) would propose adding chlorine dioxide gas to the National List and we maintain that the petition should be rejected because it fails to meet all Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) criteria. The petitioned product has a conditional registration from the Environmental Protection Agneyc (EPA), meaning that not all essential data have been submitted. It is not labeled for this use. The necessary tolerances or exemptions from tolerances do not exist. It is a hazardous chemical used to take the place of care in handling and less hazardous materials. Because the petitioner created confusion around the petitioned substance, important information about the hazards of chlorine dioxide gas and its regulation by EPA were hidden from the HS in its deliberations. The NOSB should not approve more sanitizers —particularly chlorine-based sanitizers””until performing a comprehensive review of sanitizers’ adverse effects to health and the environment and their need (essentiality) in organic production.
• Carrageenan: Beyond Pesticides opposes the relisting of carrageenan on §205.605(a) and believes that the substance should be removed from the National List. Carrageenan should be reclassified as a synthetic. The NOSB must take a precautionary approach when assessing the studies that refute findings of health effects as they were performed by the same group of industry-supported scientists. Even giving equal weight to industry-supported and independent research, the NOSB must accept the existence of science pointing to serious health consequences associated with the consumption of carrageenan and act to protect organic consumers. The evidence summarized by the 2015 Technical Review came up with a verdict of mixed results on virtually every issue regarding food grade (high molecular weight) carrageenan. However, there is widespread agreement that poligeenan, which contaminates food grade carrageenan at unknown and uncontrollable levels, does cause adverse effects, including cancer. The production causes adverse environmental impacts. And it is not necessary —organic processors have been moving away from the use of carrageen because of consumer pressure since it was last considered for sunset.
• Hydroponics: Beyond Pesticides supports the view of the majority of the Crops Subcommittee to recommend that hydroponics, aeroponics, bioponics and aquaponics methods should not be considered eligible for organic certification. Organic production depends upon the “Law of Return,” which together with the rule “Feed the soil, not the plant,” and the promotion of biodiversity, provide the ecological basis for organic systems. Hydroponic/aeroponic/bioponic/aquaponics systems are not consistent with these principles in organic production. Somewhere along the continuum between in-ground production and bioponics is a line separating those methods of production that can be certified organic from those that cannot. We can say that the line is somewhere along that continuum —in-ground production can be certified organic, while hydroponics/aeroponics/bioponics/aquaponics cannot.
• EPA List 3 — Inerts of Unknown Toxicity: The NOSB must take the sunset review of List 3 “inerts” seriously. Although List 3 “inerts” are included in the annotation change approved at the fall 2015 NOSB meeting, it may be several years before that annotation takes effect. The NOSB has identified the three List 3 “inerts” in use in organic production, and should review them according to OFPA criteria as required by law rather than simply waiting for the annotation change to take effect. The former “List 3 inerts,” which were approved for use only in passive pheromone dispensers, have received special treatment —the law did not intend for “inerts” on List 3 to be allowed in organic production. The definition of “passive polymeric dispenser products” that was included in the spring 2012 NOSB recommendation was refused by the National Organic Program NOP. Therefore, this small group of chemicals has questionable status. From Beyond Pesticides’review of these chemicals, we think it quite likely that at least some will be found to be acceptable when reviewed by the NOSB, but the existence of such an exceptional listing does not support the integrity.

Please go to Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong webpage to learn more about these and other substantive issues, and to provide a unique public comment to the NOSB.

We ask that you submit comments on as many issues and materials as you can by the October 26 deadline. For help crafting your comments, view Beyond Pesticides’ commenting guide.

Thank you for helping to protect and uphold organic integrity!

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 29, 2016) A study released last week shows that Miami-Dade County’s aerial spraying of naled for Zika virus produced little reduction on the female Aedes aegypti populations throughout the area. According to the study, Efficacy of Aedes aegypti population control methods in the first two mosquito-borne Zika transmission zones in Miami-Dade County, Florida, within three days of spraying, the mosquito population were virtually identical to the pre-spray levels. The author, Philip Stoddard, Ph.D., is a biology professer at Florida International University and mayor of South Miami.

“Application of permethrin, a persistent pyrethroid adulticide, had no effect whatsoever on mosquito counts. Naled, a potent organophosphate adulticide applied aerially, produced a transitory suppression in Wynwood but lost efficacy after two or three applications,” said Dr. Stoddard. “In Miami Beach, aerial  application of naled produced no significant reduction of the Aedes aegypti population.”

Naled is an organophosphate insecticide with the highest acute toxicity of any mosquitocide. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), naled can cause cholinesterase (an enzyme necessary to the transmission of nerve impulses) inhibition in humans, meaning that it can overstimulate the nervous system, causing nausea, dizziness, confusion, and, at very high exposures (e.g., accidents or major spills), respiratory paralysis and death. Local residents throughout Miami-Dade have repeatedly expressed their concerns about the county’s use of toxic chemicals to combat Zika, worried especially about the health of their children. Dr. Stoddard’s study puts further emphasis on how rushing to use ineffective pesticide spraying to solve Zika problems exposes both humans and wildlife  to unnecessary danger.

Earlier this month, Beyond Pesticides wrote a letter to the EPA, urging the agency to alert local and state officials to the fact that key data reviews on the safety of widely used mosquito control pesticides, including naled and synthetic pyrethroids, are outdated and incomplete. According to EPA documents, the agency did not meet a planned 2015 deadline for a final review decision evaluating residential exposure to naled, and its highly toxic breakdown product dichlorvos [DDVP]. In addition to the toxic properties of naled, EPA has stated in review documents that it “has determined that the adverse effects caused by DDVP that are of primary concern to human health are neurological effects related to inhibition of cholinesterase activity.”

Many researchers question the efficacy of spray programs for adult mosquitoes, especially given the biology of the targeted mosquito, Aedes aegypti. This mosquito stays close to its breeding sites in residential areas and inside homes, suggesting that community spray programs are the least effective control measure. Harvard Medical School Scientist and Zika expert, Michael Callahan, Ph.D., believes that aerial spraying could potentially make the Zika problem worse by killing natural predators of the Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Dr. Callahan stated in a video interview:

“We can tell you what hasn’t worked in the past with aerial spraying with this mosquito. There’s been a lot of money wasted in Singapore, Taiwan and Japan and several Central American countries, trying to control aedes aegypti with aerial spraying. It does not work. It is an indoor resident. About 60-70 of our total community population is indoors and it is not flying around at night when the aerial spraying controls. What you see in Florida is the adaptive plan for West Nile mosquito… Aerial spraying with naled or many of the other insecticides have been proven systematically to be less effective. For Aedes aegypti you need on the ground spray, houses and yards and absolutely control breeding sites by getting rid of standing water.”

The underlying philosophy of mosquito control is based on the fact that the greatest control impact on mosquito populations will occur when they are concentrated, immobile and accessible. This position is reflected in the Joint Statement on Mosquito Control in the United States from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  (September 2012).    The most effective strategy emphasizes habitast management and controlling the immature stages before the mosquitoes emerge as adults.    

CDC said in 2001, “Adulticiding, the application of chemicals to kill adult mosquitoes by ground or aerial applications, is usually the least efficient mosquito control technique.”  See also page 15, section VI, of Beyond Pesticides’  Public Health Mosquito Management Strategy.

In light of the identified hazards and unknown effects of exposure to naled and synthetic pyrethroids, Beyond Pesticides urges local and state officials to consider more closely the lack of efficacy associated with massive spray programs. Beyond Pesticides encourages an integrated approach to mosquito management that focuses on prevention through public education encouraging frequent removal of standing water, larviciding, and use of repellents. If prevention measures are enforced, the need to spray should be extremely limited, and balanced against the potential public health impacts of hazardous pesticides.  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.  Consider contacting Beyond Pesticides for 25 free mosquito doorknob hangers to encourage best management practices in your neighborhood.

Dr. Stoddard spoke at the 33rd National Pesticide Forum in Orlando, Florida. He  spearheaded an initiative to address mosquito-borne diseases while limiting environmental damage from over-application of broad-spectrum insecticides, designating the city of South Miami as a wildlife sanctuary in order to prevent mosquito spray by the county. Learn more by watching his talk here.

Sources: Miami New Times, Miami Herald

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

(Beyond Pesticides September 28, 2016) This summer, Beyond Pesticides teamed up with The Bees Waggle to develop pollinator curriculum with the intent of making it widely available for public use. The goal of the curriculum is to provide a fun, hands-on lesson about pollinators and their importance to food production. Through the lesson, students learn about biodiversity, soil health, and the negative effects of pesticides on pollinators, while participating in a variety of activities on these issues. In addition, Beyond Pesticides  will offer small grant opportunities for teachers in school districts that serve low-income students in order to offset the cost of materials and supplies required to conduct the pollinator lesson plan.

The launch of this educational  program is an expansion  of the classroom lessons  that Beyond Pesticides’ staff and Jessica  Goldstrohm, owner and head educator of The Bees Waggle, brought to District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) this  June as part of the lead up to  National Pollinator Week. The education team visited two first-grade DCPS classrooms, where students participated in lessons outlined in  Beyond Pesticides’ pollinator curriculum. Students gained a deeper understanding of the issues facing honey bees and other pollinators, and learned about ways they and their families can help stop pollinator decline. The students built small bee houses to take home, helping to spread pollinator friendly habitat throughout Washington, DC neighborhoods.

The Curriculum

The Pollinator Curriculum features many different elements, including several hands-on activities, all of which are designed to help students use critical thinking to draw connections between pollinators and themselves.

It starts with a  LESSON PLAN  designed to give teachers background information on the topic of pollinators and biodiversity, and the crucial role they play in food production. The lesson plan coordinates with a pre-designed POWERPOINT  presentation, which can be used as a visual tool for students and teachers. Educators can feel free to add or delete slides depending on their scholars’ grade, age, and ability level, in order to make a presentation that is exciting and accessible to all learners.

Finally, teachers will download and print the lesson activities, which include the  POLLINATOR POSTER, biodiversity web,  POLLINATOR PUZZLE, and instructions for making  BEE HOUSES, designed by Ms. Goldstrohm, for the students to build and take home. Teachers download and distribute a  STUDENT ACTIVITY SHEET  as a take-home activity, along with the PARENT INFORMATION SHEET that shares with  parents the lesson their child participated in and how they can get involved as a family to help protect pollinators. Also provided are resources on  BACKYARD BEEKEEPING  and building a  NATIVE BEE HOUSE  that can be added to schoolyards or gardena in order to create additional pollinator habitat

Educating local school children is just one of the many ways that Beyond Pesticides works to protect pollinators. By teaching children about the importance of bees and other pollinators early in life, the curriculum  instills the understanding  that bees are helpful organisms in the  larger food system, as opposed to ”˜scary’ insects. Beyond Pesticides believes this knowledge will remain with the children as they grow older, creating a new generation of adults who fully understand the importance of biodiversity and the negative impacts pesticides have on our ecosystem. To view and download the Pollinator Curriculum, click here. Be sure to email [email protected] to Beyond Pesticides know if you used this lesson with your students!

Grant Opportunities

In order to facilitate the adoption of this curriculum in school districts and classrooms that serve low-income communities, Beyond Pesticides is offering “Materials Grants” to enable teachers who wish to conduct  the pollinator lesson, but may not have the resources for the supplies. To take advantage of this grant program, please  fill out the online APPLICATION for more details.

For more information on what you can do to protect pollinators, see  www.beeprotective.org.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 27, 2016)  Multinational pesticide manufacturer Syngenta Crop Protection was handed a  $1.2 million fine last week for multiple violations of federal pesticide law, according a settlement reached with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA charged Syngenta with three major violations of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), including: (1) Failure to have repackaging agreement and/or maintain records on registered pesticides; (2) Distributing misbranded pesticides, and; (3) Failure to maintain data submitted for pesticide registration. However, under the consent agreement reached with EPA, the company neither admits nor denies the allegations. The settlement comes at a time of increased scrutiny of Syngenta, as the company is in the process of reregistering the herbicide atrazine, and Chinese National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) continues its attempts to complete a $43 billion merger. While the plan appears to have cleared U.S. regulatory hurdles, European lawmakers have yet to sign off on the deal.

“The repackaging, sale and distribution of unregistered and misbranded pesticides is illegal and puts people and the environment at risk. Users rely on accurate, up-to-date information about ingredients, directions for use, hazards and safety precautions,” said Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator for the Southeast in an EPA press release.

EPA found  that Syngenta distributed and/or sold over 19 pesticides to over 222 pesticide refillers (companies that receive bulk pesticide products from manufacturers and then repackage the products for sale to users) either without having repackaging agreements in place with these companies, or without maintaining records of repackaging agreements. After inspections of multiple facilities throughout the country, EPA also found that  Syngenta sold pesticide products with outdated labels. One product cited in both violations includes Expert Herbicide, a restricted use product that  contains a mixture of the herbicides atrazine, glyphosate, and S-metolachlor. With EPA focused on mitigating risks through product label instructions and warnings, it is critical that manufacturers’ products comply with current EPA registration requirements  to meet the agency’s acceptable risk standards. In the case of Expert Herbicide, Syngenta was found by EPA to have  sold its  product to refillers under a label from 2004 that was missing required information under “precautionary statements,” “directions for use,” and a “storage and disposal statement,” and without a formal agreement with the product’s repackager.

EPA’s findings  are particularly concerning because Syngenta  settled a lawsuit in 2012  with over 1,800 Community Water Systems (CWS) over contamination of drinking water with atrazine. The company was required to pay $105 million to CWSs throughout the country to assist them with removing this highly toxic chemical from drinking water.

Syngenta’s final set of violations came from an inspection of laboratories the company used to test pesticides to support their registration. EPA discovered that Syngenta, as required by  FIFRA,  did not maintain study records that  characterized  food residues after the application of the widely used fungicides azoxystrobin and propiconazole.

Under the consent agreement, Syngenta will pay $766,508 in civil penalties and will spend $436,990 to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP). The SEP requires Syngenta to conduct within four  years an education campaign to train pesticide users, manufacturers, and refillers about regulatory requirements under FIFRA. EPA will oversee the program’s implementation to ensure manufacturer compliance with the law.

Ms.  Heard said,  “This settlement sends a strong message to pesticide companies to maintain compliance with all federal environmental laws.” It has been suggested by  Beyond Pesticides that  EPA adopt  a more aggressive enforcement strategy, that the settlements on penalties do not appear to affect corporate behavior.  Only 2 years ago, while EPA was still conducting its Syngenta investigation, the agency announced the largest ever pesticide fine ($1.7 million) for violations that included mislabeling pesticide products. It does not appear that the few penalties have not created enough of a disincentive. The agency brought four cases  leading to civil penalties in 2014, and two  cases in 2015.

Without strong enforcement and oversight, companies may  feel little pressure to adhere to regulatory  requirements under  federal law. For the protection of public and environmental health, it is critical that state and federal agencies vigorously enforce current law, and update their current enforcement policy, which has not been revised since 2009, to allow higher penalties and expanded use of criminal proceedings.

Take the most effective action to protect public and environmental health by telling EPA to ban uses of the toxic herbicide atrazine. You can also work to reduce demand for pesticides by going organic in your yard and community, and purchasing certified organic food whenever possible.

Source: EPA Region 4 Press Release, Syngenta Consent Agreement and Final Order

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

(Beyond Pesticides September 26, 2016) Last week, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) filed a lawsuit against Dow Agrosciences LLC, also known as Dow Chemical, charging  that the “chemical manufacturing giant” fails to warn communities across California about the dangers associated with wide use of the chemical Telone. A trade name for the chemical 1,3-Dicholoropropene, or 1,3-D, Telone is a known carcinogen and is the third most heavily used pesticide in the state. The case focuses on the air pollution caused by the pesticide, as it has been found to linger in the air for multiple days after application, disproportionately impacting the rural communities, often with large minority populations, that live in the immediate vicinity. The case was filed in the State of California Alameda County Superior Court, and Dow has yet to comment or release a statement addressing the allegations against the company.

Routinely applied to strawberry fields, almond orchards, vineyards, and an array of other crops, 1,3-D is a restricted use soil  fumigant, used to kill nematodes, insects, and weeds that has strong links  to cancer and other serious health issues. The use of the chemical in the production of strawberries came into prominence with the forced reduction of another fumigant,  methyl bromide. Scientists became concerned about  methyl bromide in the 1970’s, when it was linked to serious effects on the ozone and was blamed for between 5 and 10 percent of ozone depletion. With the signing of  Montreal Protocol  in 1987, a treaty signed by  President Reagan, methyl bromide became the only pesticide to be banned in the U.S. by treaty, a ban meant to be in full effect by 2005.  Though the U.S. continues to allow the use of methyl bromide through a “critical use exemption,” the ban gave rise to a new class of fumigants, which included 1,3-D, the chemical in Telone.

In time, 1,3-D was revealed to be no better than its predecessor, raising concerns about  the public health and environmental risks associated with its use. A 2014 publication by the Center for Investigative Reporting,  Dark Side of the Strawberry,  revealed increased uses of 1,3-D  results in  unsafe levels of the chemical in the air and that decisions behind 1,3-D monitoring and application rates are fraught with industry manipulation and risk reduction work-arounds. Specifically, California regulators allowed growers to exceed  the 1,3-D health limits, despite documented concerns from state scientists, and turned to Dow Agrosciences, the defendant in the current lawsuit, to figure out how to fix the problem.

The Center for Environmental Health’s lawsuit focuses on the air pollution caused by the use of Telone, and the disproportionate impact it has on minority communities. Telone was initially banned in California in 1990 after studies showed air pollution from the chemical lingered near farms. But the toxic fumigant was later allowed back on the market after a strong lobbying effort lead by Dow. In 2002, California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) loosened the restrictions on Telone over the objections of its own scientists who stated, “Department of Pesticide Regulation scientists do not agree [with the decision to re-allow Telone] and suggest that [the new rules] may actually increase cancer risk.” According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, more than one  million people live in 100 California communities where Telone use surpasses the original safety limits.

“Telone is a serious health threat to families who deserve environmental justice now,” said Michael Green, CEO of CEH. “For decades, Dow and state regulators have put profits ahead of our health. It is long past time for California to protect children and families from Dow’s dangerous chemical.” The CEH lawsuit aims to limit the use of Telone in and require Dow to warn area residents of Shafter, California before applying the pesticide.

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

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

In light of these findings, the lawsuit advances  the quest to reduce or eliminate the use of Telone in California, and in turn to protect some of the most vulnerable populations from risks of exposure. CEH mentioned in its  press release that, as recently as two weeks ago, parents and staff at an elementary school in Watsonville, CA learned that Telone and other fumigants were scheduled to be applied on a Monday morning just before school began, at a farm less than 1,000 feet from the school. A 2014 report by the California Department of Health found that Latino schoolchildren are 91% more likely than white students to be exposed to the highest levels of hazardous pesticides, a harrowing statistic this lawsuit hopes to end.

The  lawsuit, reports like the  Dark Side of Strawberries,  and other documented hazards  associated with  fumigants and strawberry production  emphasize the need to shift away from dependency on toxic chemicals and seek sustainable, organic solutions to crop production and feeding families. There are less toxic ways to grow strawberries and other crops that have relied on these toxic fumigants. Growing strawberries organically has been shown to create  healthier soils, higher quality fruit, and  improve pollination success. Visit Beyond Pesticides’ website to learn more about  supporting organic agriculture  and  making sustainable choices in the foods we eat.

For more information on pesticide synergy, see  Synergy: The Big Unknowns of Pesticide Exposure. For information on individual pesticide health effects, see the  Pesticide Gateway.

Source: Center for Environmental Health Press Release, Associated Press

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 23, 2016) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed listing the rusty patched bumble bee as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This is a victory for environmental groups who have fought to protect the rusty patched bumble bee from widespread threats such as habitat loss and pesticide use. The FWS proposal opens a 60-day public comment to allow agencies, groups and interested people to comment and provide new information. The public comment period is open through November 21, 2016. You can submit comments soon by visiting the docket, here.

According to FWS, the rusty patched bumble bee was once widespread across the United States and parts of Canada, but declined dramatically in the 1990s. Their populations dwindled and have declined by 91 percent. FWS acknowledged  that the bumble bee populations considered for this proposal have not been reconfirmed since the early 2000s, meaning that currently there may be even less of the species left. Threats to the rusty patched bumble bee include diseases introduced by commercial bumble bees that are not free of pathogens and are released near wild populations. Climate change plays a part, along with habitat loss from industrial agriculture and other modernization that decreases wild lands. There is also an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that neonicotinoids insecticides, working either 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.

In 2015, a study coauthored by Christopher Connolly, Ph.D., with the University of Dundee, found that bumble bees exposed to field-relevant levels (2.1 parts per billion) of the neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin suffer poor navigation and foraging skills. Clothianidin exhibits an acute effect on the bumble bee’s brain, breaking down the mitochondria in its brain cells. At the time, Dr. Connolly stated, “Our research demonstrates beyond doubt that the level of neonicotinoids generally accepted as the average level present in the wild causes brain dysfunction and colonies to perform poorly when consumed by bumble bees.”

In another study,  Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees, Swedish scientists reported that wild bees and bumble bees foraging in crops treated with a commonly used insecticide seed coating, a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the non-systemic pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin, are  less likely to reproduce when compared to bees in untreated fields, and that bumble bee colonies in treated fields gain less weight. Additionally, fewer wild bees and bumble bees are found in treated fields than in untreated ones.

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

Similarly, in February, a United Nation’s assessment of pollinators and the global food supply warned that many species of wild bees, butterflies, and other pollinators are on a dangerous path toward extinction, further threatening the  food supply if the human-made causes of these declines are not halted. The assessment found that an estimated sixteen percent of vertebrate pollinators are threatened with global extinction.

For these reasons and many others, Beyond Pesticides works to promote the widespread transition of conventional farmland to organic production. Organic law requires farmers to foster soil health, and create a strategy to deal with pest populations before they become a problem. Because of these factors, many organic farms do not require the use of even organic-compatible pesticides, opting instead to increase pest and disease resiliency through an increased diversity of pest predators.

With one in three bites of food reliant on bees, other insects, and birds for pollination, the decline in pollinators due to pesticides, and other human-made causes, demands immediate action. For more on this and what you can do to protect pollinators, visit Beyond Pesticides’  BEE Protective webpage.

For further information about the decline of the rusty patched bumble bee, you can watch A Ghost in the Making, a short film about the species disappearance.

Source: FWS, Xerces Society

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 22, 2016) Yesterday, the United Nations (UN) gathered to address the alarming rise of antibiotic resistance at a day-long meeting in New York. The UN General Assembly, made up of delegates from 193 countries, has only convened health-related meetings on three other issues: Ebola, HIV, and noncommunicable diseases. According to the World Health Organization, which collaborates with the UN on health-related priorities, “Antimicrobial resistance has become one of the biggest threats to global health, such as human development.” At this high-profile meeting, Heads of State and Heads of Delegations addressed the urgency of the situation and discussed multisectoral approaches to addressing antimicrobial resistance. This UN meeting elevated the discussion to a historic level and led to the approval of a declaration, but did not result in legally binding actions and failed to include language to eliminate excessive antibiotic use in animal agriculture.

In an interview with Vox, Kevin Outterson, Professor of Law at Boston University, stated that “it has taken 15 years to get [antimicrobial resistance] back on the global agenda” since the UN last tried to take action in September 2001. Experts are warning that we may be entering or have already entered a post-antibiotic era and immediate global action must be taken.

The development of resistance by bacterial, viral, and fungal microorganisms to antimicrobial medicines is primarily due to management practices, the improper and overuse of these medicines in human, agriculture and aquaculture, as well as antimicrobial residues that make their way into water, soil, and crop systems. In the U.S., antibiotic-resistant microorganisms cause over two million illnesses and approximately 23,000 deaths each year as a direct result of antibiotic-resistant infection. Many more people fall ill or die from other conditions that were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection.

The vast majority of antibiotics sold in the U.S. are given to non-organic livestock. According to Physicians for Social Responsibility, the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock production accounts for nearly 80% of all antibiotics used in the United States. Typically, low levels of antibiotics are administered to animals through feed and water to prevent disease and promote growth. This is generally done to compensate for overcrowded and unsanitary living conditions, as is common in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and to fatten livestock to get them to market sooner. This process increases the risk of infectious disease outbreaks that would be averted under living conditions appropriate to each species.

Under the Organic Foods Production Act, (OFPA) certified USDA livestock producers cannot use growth promoters and hormones, whether implanted, ingested, or injected, including antibiotics. Additionally, certified USDA Organic livestock producers cannot use subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics, meaning they cannot administer low-dose antibiotic treatments that are not for the purpose of treating sick livestock. The standards also require that producers maintain living conditions that prevent infectious diseases from becoming established and adversely affecting livestock health.

In the spring of 2014, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted to uphold the phase out in apple and pear production of the antibiotic streptomycin, which was set to expire on October 21, 2014. This vote came after a similar proposal to extend an exemption for oxytetracycline, another antibiotic used in apple and pear production, was rejected at the spring 2013 NOSB meeting. Beyond Pesticides, with other organizations, led the effort to remove antibiotics from organic apple and pear production because of their contribution to antibiotic resistance, organic consumer expectation that antibiotics are not used in organic food production, and the availability of alternative practices and inputs.

Additionally, the wide use of triclosan, an antibacterial in antimicrobial soaps and personal care products, also has led to an increase in bacterial resistance. In a decision that was long overdue, on September 2, 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned triclosan in soaps, while EPA continues to allow for its use in common household products and toys. Beyond Pesticides raised concerns about the health effects of triclosan in 2004 in its piece, The Ubiquitous Triclosan, and petitioned the agency to ban the chemical in 2005. In 2015, triclosan was banned in the European Union. For nearly two decades, scientific studies have disputed the need for the chemical and linked its widespread use to health and environmental effects and the development of stronger bacteria that are increasingly difficult to control. For more background, see Beyond Pesticides’ triclosan page.

Through the support of organic agriculture and in pressing  for even stronger organic standards and continuous improvement, consumers are moving the market away from hazardous chemicals, including antimicrobial use. For more information on what you can do to advance organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong website, which provides a number of resources for people to participate in the organic review process.

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

Sources: Vox, World Health Organization, The Toronto Star

(Beyond Pesticides, September 21, 2016) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Pesticide Programs released last week  its Glyphosate Issue Paper in which the agency is proposing to classify glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant for human health risk assessment.” Glyphosate, the controversial active ingredient in Roundup, was classified in 2015 by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a “probable carcinogen” and numerous studies have associated the chemical with cancer and other human health issues. However, EPA’s proposed a classification that is contrary, not only to WHO’s, but also a position  it had previously held. The issue paper was released in preparation for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting, October 18-21, which convenes to review EPA’s evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate.

Glyphosate, produced by Monsanto, is one of the most popular weedkillers in the U.S., and the active ingredient in Roundup. Glyphosate is often promoted by industry as a “low toxicity” chemical and “safer” than other chemicals, yet 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.

The carcinogenic potential of glyphosate has been reviewed and disagreed on many times. EPA, in 1985, originally classified glyphosate as a chemical ”˜possibly carcinogenic to humans,’ based on tumors in laboratory animals,  but changed its classification to evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans years later, allowing the chemical to grow to  the most widely used pesticide in the U.S.  But now, according to EPA’s document, in September 2015, the agency reviewed relevant glyphosate data, including studies submitted by the registrant and studies published in the open literature. This evaluation resulted in a classification of glyphosate as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans.”  However, many of these industry studies are not publicly available, and their findings may not have been peer-reviewed.

To clarify, EPA’s hierarchical  categories of carcinogens,  recognized by the 2005  Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment  are:

• Carcinogenic to Humans
• Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans
• Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential
• Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential
• Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans

Debate has been raging in Europe about the continued use of glyphosate in light of the 2015 classification by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of  glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.” However, confusion peaked when a few short months later the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  published its report  finding that 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 (Roundup) which are more relevant for evaluating risks to human health. The European Commission has since issued a  limited license extension for glyphosate, after member states were unable to come to a formal decision. The extension also comes with some restrictions, including obligations for member states to minimize use on playgrounds, and a ban on formulations with the ingredient POEA,  which can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells.

In addition to IARC’s findings,  previous studies  have linked the toxicant to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma. It is also an endocrine disruptor, causes reproductive effects, kidney and liver damage, and is toxic to aquatic organisms, according to studies. In September 2015, a study published in Environmental Health News found that  chronic, low-dose exposure to glyphosate  led to adverse effects on liver and kidney health. Roundup formulations can also 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. Similarly, a study released this year finds that glyphosate  can cause changes to DNA function resulting in the onset of chronic disease, including diabetes, obesity, and Alzheimer’s disease.

The  FIFRA SAP  is made up of biologists, toxicologists, and other scientific experts who consult the EPA on “a wide-range of health and safety issues related to pesticides.” EPA’s selection of advisory board members and past FIFRA SAP nominees have been criticized because of conflicts of interest, but it is not known how this particular panel will react to EPA’s proposal. After their meeting, the FIFRA SAP will have 90 days to submit a written report to the EPA for their review. All of this action is a part of EPA’s most current effort to publish glyphosate’s human health and ecological risk assessments, scheduled for release in spring 2017.

We encourage you to submit written comments for the FIFRA SAP to review and consider during their meeting. This can be done using identification docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0385; online  here, by mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, or in person  following these instructions.  More details on how to submit comments can be found  here.

Given the mounting evidence of glyphosate’s hazards environmental groups, like Beyond Pesticides, are urging localities to restrict or eliminate the use of the widely-used weedkiller, like Tracy Madlener, a mother of two,  successfully did last year. 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  for more information.

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

Source:  NPR  ,  American Council on Science and Health

(Beyond Pesticides, September 20, 2016) Honey bee colonies are declining as the total number of pesticide products they are exposed to increases, regardless of the amount of exposure, according to research published last week from scientists at the University of Maryland (UMD). The study aimed to look at honey bee colonies’ exposome, a term traditionally used in cancer research, defined as the measure of all exposures over an individual’s lifetime and how those exposures relate to health. In their investigation, researchers did not look at individual honey bees but instead treated the colony as a single super-organism, and based results on lifetime exposure to agricultural chemicals.

The 91 honey bee colonies studied by researchers were exposed to a total of 93 different pesticide compounds throughout the course of their pollination season. Of these residues, 13 different compounds were found in bees, 61 in beebread (packed pollen within the hive), and 70 were found in wax. Researchers gauged the effect of pesticide exposure not only by looking at the number of pesticides in colonies, but also their toxicological relevance over a specific threshold, as well as through the calculation of a hazard quotient (HQ), which evaluates  the cumulative toxicity of various pesticide residues. Pesticide detections and HQ spiked when colonies were placed in agricultural fields for pollination (including blueberry, apple, citrus and cucumber production), and decreased when placed in a holding yard or put into honey production.

During the pollination season, colonies that died-off had higher total pesticide residues in their wax over the course of sampling than colonies that survived. While researchers found that insecticides were the greatest contributor of increased hazard to honey bee colonies, elevated levels of fungicides appeared to be correlated with colonies that died within ~30 days after sampling.  “We were surprised to find such an abundance of fungicides inside the hives, but it was even more surprising to find that fungicides are linked to imminent colony mortality,” said Kirsten Traynor, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in entomology at UMD and lead author on the study. “These compounds have long been thought to be safe for bees. We’re seeing them at higher doses than the chemicals beekeepers apply directly to the colonies to control varroa mites. So that is particularly concerning.”

Pesticide load and hazard were also elevated in colonies that experienced a queen event —when a queen is replaced, in the process of being replaced, or queenless. A queen event is a predictor that a colony will die-off within ~50 days. Researchers found levels of synthetic pyrethroids were higher in colonies with a queen event, echoing past research showing adverse effects to bee reproduction from pyrethroid exposure. While scientists did not find a significant contribution from neonicotinoids, a class of chemicals widely implicated in bee and other pollinator declines, co-authors of the research note the study may not have been set up to adequately investigate their impact.

“We just did not find neonicotinoids in the colonies,” said Dennis vanEngelsdorp, PhD, UMD professor and co-author of the study. “There were some trace residues of neonicotinoids in a few samples, but not nearly on par with other compounds. However, it’s possible we did not test the right matrix””we did not test nectar, for example””or that the product breaks down faster than others in the collection process or that neonicotinoids are simply not very prevalent when crops are flowering.” Environmental and beekeeper groups have criticized Dr. vanEnglesdorp in the past for pinning the worldwide decline of honey bees on the varroa mite, and downplaying the role that neonicotinoid pesticides play in pollinator die-offs.

The implications of this research stretch beyond a single class of chemicals. While the body of science on neonicotinoids, including EPA’s own determination that these chemicals are highly toxic to bees, indicates that they should be immediately removed from use, it is evident that chemcial-intensive  agriculture in general is owed much of the blame. Rather than focus on reducing pesticide exposure or refraining from use when bees are present, agrichemical companies, the conventional farming community, and federal regulators must take a long look at what practices are truly sustainable in the long term. It is clear that insect pollination and its subsequent health and economic benefits will not be maintained if measures aren’t taken to drastically shift agricultural production toward safer practices modeled on organic agriculture. By focusing on soil health, biodiversity, cultural practices like crop rotation and intercropping, and limited off-farm inputs, organic systems represent a viable, scalable path forward.

Concerned residents can help facilitate the shift to organic practices right in their own community by encouraging their local leaders to transition from conventional to organic landscaping. Individuals in farming communities can start conversations about safer practices directly with their neighbors and at community meetings. Consumers can help promote the growth of organic agriculture by purchasing organic products whenever possible. For more information on how organic agriculture benefits pollinators, see our BEE Protective and organic program webpage.

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

Source: PRWeb, Nature

(Beyond Pesticides,  September 19, 2016) Last week, a  proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger was announced, as St. Louis-based agrichemical giant  Monsanto Co. agreed to sell the company  to German pharmaceutical and chemical conglomerate, Bayer, in  an unprecedented $66 billion dollar deal. It is the merger of two companies that have been tied to past atrocities against humanity, one whose chemical product was  used  to kill  concentration camp victims under Adolf Hitler and the other a producer of the  deadly defoliant, Agent Orange, which was sprayed by the U.S. government over Vietnam and left a legacy of health damage to the Vietnamese people and U.S. veterans of the armed forces. At the same time, these companies are currently embroiled in controversy on  some of the most hazardous pesticides, including glyphosate (Roundup^TM) and neonicotinoids, used in food production and in communities and home gardens    —continuing a history of profiting from a technology that has adverse effects on human life and the environment, but has been shown to be unnecessary and unsustainable in food production and the management of lawns, landscapes, playing fields, and parks.

In 1995, the Associated Press reported that the then-CEO of Bayer,  Helge Wehmeier, apologized to Elie Wiesel, Ph.D., holocaust survivor, author, activist, and 1986 Nobel Peace Prize recipient,  for his predecessor corporation’s (I.G. Farben) role in chemical testing on and killing concentration camp prisoners. He said, “I have sorrow and regret and apologize for the inhumanity in my country and for what I.G. Farben did to your people.” The AP reported, “Bayer’s parent company, Bayer AG, was part of the German chemical conglomerate I.G. Farben [IGF], which ran slave-labor factories during the Holocaust, including one at which Wiesel worked as a teenager.  IGF also had a decisive share in a company that made Zyklon B gas, used to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews at Auschwitz, where Wiesel’s mother and sister died.” More detail, according to Alliance for Human Research Protection: “IG Farben was the most powerful German corporate cartel in the first half of the 20th century and the single largest profiteer from the Second World War. IG (Interessengemeinschaft) stands for “Association of Common Interests”: IG Farben included BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, and other German chemical and pharmaceutical companies.  As documents show, IG Farben was intimately involved with the human experimental atrocities committed by Mengele at Auschwitz.  A German watchdog organization, the GBG Network, maintains copious documents and tracks Bayer Pharmaceutical activities.”

In  reprinting an article from 2005 on the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the  Centre for  Research on Globalization published this statement on its website: “It is of particular relevance in relation to the announced merger between Monsanto and Bayer and the worldwide campaign against Monsanto.  Both companies are complicit in crimes against humanity, Monsanto’s agent orange used by the US military in Vietnam,  IG-Farben Bayer’s historical links to Nazi war crimes.”

In order to gain control of Monsanto, Bayer increased its offer to $128.00 a share, up from the $127.50 the  company  offered earlier this month. The pharmaceutical giant has been pursuing Monsanto in an attempt to become the world’s largest biotechnology and pesticide manufacture, raising concerns by those who oppose the mega-merger of limited choices for acquiring seed and increased pesticide sales and dependence. This is just the latest development in a flurry of activity surrounding mergers in the multinational  agriculture and chemical industries in the past year.

In December 2015, chemical giants DuPont and Dow Chemical Compa nies announced that their boards of directors unanimously  approved a merger of their companies  through an all-stock deal, valuing the combined market capitalization at $130 billion. Then, in May of 2016,  Bayer AG made its first bid for Monsanto, worth $42 billion, in an attempt to swallow the global seed and chemical producer and become the world’s biggest farm chemical supplier, though that initial bid was initially rejected in favor of the one approved last week. Finally, in February 2016,  China National Chemical Corp. acquired Syngenta AG, and then cleared a major hurdle to the merger this past August when the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) gave the go-ahead for the merger to move forward, a deal worth nearly $43 million. The Bayer takeover of Monsanto will  be the largest merger yet, valued at $66 billion. According to  Vox, the new company will  be the largest agribusiness in the world, selling 29 percent of the world’s seeds and 24 percent of its pesticides. Additionally, it is predicted that if all three deals were to close, the three resulting companies would control nearly 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market, a harrowing statistic for anyone concerned about the impact chemical-intensive agriculture has on soil quality and overall environmental health.

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 many believe that a merger will provide longer-term security. However, for the billion-dollar agrichemical 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. Observers say, however, that in the long-term, the market will reveal that relying on the promotion of chemical-intensive agricultural practices is not a sustainable business practice. Chemical-intensive agriculture depends on chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides that have been shown to  reduce soil organic matter and decrease the diversity of soil biota. These chemical inputs contaminate waterways leading to 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, toxic chemical inputs will become obsolete. Sustainability advocates say that the  only way that the agricultural industry can create a sustainable business model is to produce products that are compatible with  organic agriculture.

On the matter of the cost of food without toxic pesticides, data shows that the cost of chemical-intensive agriculture are far greater than organic production systems, although consumers pay for these in the form of increased taxes for chemical cleanups, emergency response to  accidents, and in health care utility bills, not at the grocery store. Chemical companies are able to externalize the social and environmental costs of their products  in the form of eutrophication, soil erosion, harm to wildlife, illness (lost productivity) and health care costs to consumers, pollination, 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.

The merger is not set in stone, however, and several steps  must take place  before the deal can be finalized. As with the ChemChina-Syngenta merger, the CFIUS would have to give the go ahead for the deal, as well as the European Commission, which generally opposed the use of genetically modified seeds, an area Monsanto specialized in. Monsanto readily admits they would have to file for approval in about 30 jurisdictions, diversifying the possibility of finding an unfavorable host. They will also have to withstand scrutiny and challenges from antitrust authorities and regulators with concerns over potential threats to national security, as well as to the food supply.

According to U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, “The attempted takeover of Monsanto by Bayer is a threat to all Americans. These mergers boost the profits of huge corporations and leave Americans paying even higher prices,” he  said  in an official statement. “Not only should this merger be blocked, but the Department of Justice should reopen its investigation of Monsanto’s monopoly over the seed and chemical market.”

The former presidential candidate is not alone in his concern over the potential impact this large scale merger could have on the United States. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has called a hearing tomorrow (Tuesday September 20, 2016) to scrutinize the wave of consolidation. While his concerns likely center around the impact of the merger to conventional farming methods, which are heavily reliant on seeds and chemicals produced by agro-industry players like Monsanto, and not on that of the organic industry, it does offer a chance for individuals opposed to the merger to voice their concerns. If you oppose the Bayer-Monsanto merger, please consider reaching out to your Senators or Representative to ask them to reject the approval of a merger that consolidate seed availability, and encourage them to instead focus on increasing the availability of organic seeds, which do not negatively impact soil, water or human health.

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

For further information, check out our webpages on  Organic Agriculture.

Source: Reuters  

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

(Beyond Pesticides, September 16, 2016) Tell EPA to ban all uses of atrazine in the United States! Atrazine, widely used on food and feed crops, golf courses, and residential lawns, is a potent endocrine disruptor that is  strongly associated with birth defects, cancer, sex reversal and hermaphroditism in many different animals. The European Union and other countries have banned atrazine, however EPA continues to put U.S. citizens and the environment in harm’s way, allowing nonstop use of this toxic chemical. Sign Beyond Pesticides’ petition to ban atrazine by October 5, 2016.

Atrazine is the second-most widely used pesticide in the U.S., with over 73 million pounds applied each year. Atrazine has washed into surface water and leached into groundwater, spurring community water utilities  across the U.S. to file class-action lawsuits to remove the pesticide from drinking water supplies.

Even at levels established as “safe” or acceptable by EPA drinking water standards, atrazine is linked to endocrine-disrupting effects. EPA is not adequately assessing the effects of atrazine by using high dose testing models, which are not appropriate for hormonally-active substances  that  often show effects at minute doses. Studies by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley,  and others have shown that concentrations as little as 0.1ppb impact hormone function in organisms and turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites — organisms  with both male and female sexual characteristics. Research also finds that atrazine interferes with mammary gland development in the breast of mammals and is  linked to certain birth defects  like gastroschisis and choanal atresia, which are significantly increased for pregnant women with high levels of atrazine exposure in  agricultural areas and from urban streams.

Despite these disturbing findings and the availability of other least-toxic herbicide options, EPA has taken an unacceptably slow and unresponsive approach in the regulation of atrazine. In previous approvals of atrazine, EPA has concluded  that there is no evidence of adverse effects on animal development. However, in April of this year, the agency released a draft ecological risk assessmen that finds atrazine poses unacceptable risks  to fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and even birds, reptiles and mammals. You can submit comments on the draft ecological risk assessment for atrazine (EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266) in the federal docket until October 5, 2016.

The assessments evaluated risks to animals and plants, including amphibians, birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, aquatic invertebrates, aquatic plant communities, and terrestrial plants. EPA concludes, “aquatic plant communities are impacted in many areas where atrazine use is heaviest, and there is potential chronic risks to fish, amphibians, and aquatic invertebrate in these same locations. In the terrestrial environment, there are risk concerns for mammals, birds, reptiles, plants and plant communities across the country for many of the atrazine uses.” Levels of concerns were exceeded by as much as 200-fold for some organisms!

In July, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced that atrazine, its chemical cousins propazine and simazine, and its breakdown triazine compounds would be added to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of the state’s Proposition 65.

The evidence is clear. Atrazine harms wildlife, persists in soils, and moves easily through waterways. An EPA official stated years ago that, “The ultimate decision [with atrazine] is much bigger than science, it weighs in public opinion.” Use your voice to #banatrazine!

Take Action: Sign the petition to urge EPA to end the use of atrazine. In order to protect human and ecological health, the agency should take immediate action to eliminate this chemical from our environment!

(Washington D.C. September 15, 2016)  Beyond Pesticides today urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to immediately alert local and state mosquito control officials, elected officials, and the public throughout the U.S. to the fact that EPA’s key data reviews on the safety of widely used mosquito control pesticides, including naled and synthetic pyrethroids, are  outdated and incomplete and the scientific literature raises safety concerns. In a letter to EPA, Beyond Pesticides said, “As local and state officials implement mosquito abatement programs to address the Zika virus, it is critical that they have complete transparent safety information that they are not currently getting from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).”

Beyond Pesticides continues, “This information, specific to residential exposure to the insecticides naled and its main degradation product dichlorvos (DDVP), as well as synthetic pyrethroids, is necessary for officials on the ground to make fully informed decisions and for public right to know.”

According to EPA documents, the agency did not meet a planned 2015 deadline for a final review decision evaluating residential exposure to naled, a neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide that is currently being used in community mosquito spraying, and its highly toxic breakdown product DDVP. In addition to the toxic properties of naled, EPA has stated in review documents that it “has determined that the adverse effects caused by dichlorvos [DDVP] that are of primary concern to human health are neurological effects related to inhibition of cholinesterase activity.” There is also “suggestive” evidence of DDVP’s carcinogenicity, as well as concerns associated with its neurotoxicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive impacts.

Similarly, EPA has recognized in its  documents that synthetic pyrethroids, including permethrin and phenothrin (sumithrin), must also have their assessments updated and completed, calling into question safety statements from EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Several pyrethroids are associated with cancer, hormone disruption, and reproductive effects, and thus have hazard and exposure concerns regarding widespread application for mosquito control. Phenothrin, for instance, “lacks acute, chronic, and developmental neurotoxicity studies that are required to fully evaluate risks to infants and children,” and for permethrin there are outstanding concerns regarding its developmental neurotoxicity.

According to EPA’s final work plan, published in 2009, the agency planned to begin public comment on a registration review decision for naled in 2014, with a final decision in 2015. “Given the widespread use of naled in South Florida, Puerto Rico and other states and territories over fears of the spread of the Zika virus, it is imperative that an updated risk assessment be presented for public review and comment, especially since there are important outstanding data and concerns regarding naled/DDVP exposures to residential bystanders,” Beyond Pesticides told EPA.

The use of naled in a South Carolina community last month also resulted in the death of 2 million bees. In 2012, the European Union banned naled, citing “Official Journal of the European Union” to human health and the environment.

In light of the identified hazards and unknown effects of exposure to both naled/DDVP and synthethic pyrethroids, Beyond Pesticides urges local and state officials to consider more closely the lack of efficacy associated with massive spray programs. Researchers question the efficacy of spray programs for adult mosquitoes, especially given the biology of the targeted mosquito, Aedes aegypti. This mosquito stays close to its breeding sites in residential areas and inside homes, suggesting that community spray programs are the least effective control measure.

Beyond Pesticides encourages an integrated approach to mosquito management that focuses on prevention through public education encouraging frequent removal of standing water, larviciding, and use of repellents. If prevention measures are enforced, the need to spray should be extremely limited, and balanced against the potential public health impacts of hazardous pesticides.

Download a copy of the letter here: http://bit.ly/2cFHThg.
Download a copy of the response from EPA here.
Download a PDF version of the press release here.
For more information on mosquito management, see www.beyondpesticides.org/mosquito.

Contacts:
Beyond Pesticides, Nichelle Harriott, [email protected],  Jay Feldman, [email protected], 202-543-5450.

(Beyond Pesticides, September 14, 2016) According to a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), high concentrations of dioxins and furans have been detected in tree swallow eggs collected near several sites around the Great Lakes. Other chemicals detected include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which were at background levels. The study is part of efforts to clean up a toxic chemical legacy around the Great Lakes, and the researchers believe their results are critical to regulators to assess “bird or animal deformity or reproductive problems”

The study, “Concentrations and spatial patterns of organic contaminants in tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) eggs at United States and binational Great Lakes Areas of Concern, 2010—2015,” used tree swallows to quantify current exposure to organic contaminants across all five Great Lakes including 59 sites within 27  Areas of Concern (AOCs)  and 10 nearby  locations. The Great Lakes Areas of Concern refers to a U.S.-Canada  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement  (Annex 1 of the 2012 Protocol) that  defines AOCs as “geographic areas designated by the Parties where significant  impairment of beneficial uses  has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level.” An AOC is a location that has experienced environmental degradation, and includes several water bodies in New York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and others.

Tree swallows in this study were sampled across the Great Lakes basin in 2010 through 2015 where concentrations of organic contaminants in the eggs were quantified and compared with background and reproductive effect thresholds in order to provide a system-wide assessment of current exposure. The contaminants, including   polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (furans), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and a suite of 26 pesticides (including chlordane, heptachlor and mirex),  were selected because they are listed by the  AOCs  as contaminants of concern, tend to persist in the environment, and are known or suspected to cause reproductive issues.

While many of the contaminants tested in the study  are at or below average background exposure, including PCBs  and PBDEs,  concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and furan (PCDD-F) at the Saginaw River and Bay and Midland, Michigan exceed set benchmarks  associated with reproductive effects (hatching effects). The researchers note that their findings “can be used by States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess ongoing restoration activities intended to reduce wildlife exposures to these contaminants, which can cause deformities or reproductive problems.”

This ongoing biomonitoring work is part of The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative,  which was launched in 2010 to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes- largest system of fresh surface water in the world. According to the initiative, federal agencies will continue to strategically target the biggest threats to the Great Lakes ecosystem and accelerate progress toward long-term goals for this important ecosystem. Actions include, cleaning up Great Lakes Areas of Concern, preventing and controlling invasive species, reducing nutrient runoff that contributes to harmful/nuisance algal blooms, and restoring habitat to protect native species.

Legacy chemicals like dioxins and PCBs, longed banned in the U.S., continue to plague wildlife and even humans. In addition to the birds in  this study, river otters in the Midwest have also been found to still be contaminated with these substances. Another study  attributed to DDT the reproductive problems plaguing endangered condors in California, as a result of the birds’ feeding on contaminated sea lions.  A recent study by researchers at Drexel University, which looked at PCB, DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, report that higher levels of some of these compounds during pregnancy are associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID).  Dioxins, PCBs and other organochlorines are categorized as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) because they persist for long periods of time in the environment, eventually making their way up food chains, accumulating in the fatty tissues and animals and humans. Their  legacy of poisoning the environment  has been well documented, despite being banned for decades. Recent studies have linked these POPs to  hormonal disturbances, abnormal sperm development, cancer,  diabetes, obesity and environmental contamination.

Efforts to halt the pollution of the Great Lakes and other waterways has been a focus in the region for many  years. Toxicants like  lindane, dioxin, PCB, and  microcystin,  have also been detected as pollutants in the Great Lakes. In 2015, two Michigan Representatives introduced the  Great Lakes Assurance Program Verification Act  (HR 3120)  in an effort to halt the pollution of the Great Lakes from agricultural run-off, which causes dangerous algae blooms and it a major threat to ecosystems in the region ­. Scientists had been  tracking algal blooms  in the Great Lakes  for years and have  recommended region-wide monitoring and a change in farm management practices. In 2014, residents of Toledo, Ohio were advised to stop using tap water after a local water treatment plant found toxic substances in dangerous quantities in the water. 500,000 residents were  instructed  not to drink the water, brush teeth or prepare food with the water, or give it to pets. The contamination resulted from continuously growing algal blooms on Lake Erie, Ohio’s northern water source.

Beyond Pesticides tracks the scientific literature  related to pesticide exposure through the Pesticide Induced Diseases Database (PIDD). For more information on the impacts of pesticides, past and present, on human and environmental health, visit our PIDD page.

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

Source: USGS  

(Beyond Pesticides, September 13, 2016) Land suitable for commercial beekeepers in the U.S. Northern Great Plains (NGP) is declining rapidly, according to a new study released earlier this month by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS). The region, which supports over 40% of managed honey bee colonies, is quickly replacing suitable pollinator habitat with more and more pesticide-intensive biofuel crops, particularly corn and soybean, as a result of increased crop prices and federal subsidies for biofuels. The concerning trend adds another layer of stress not only to honey bee colonies, but beekeepers whose livelihood depends on the health of their commercial livestock.

From early summer to mid-fall, roughly one million honey bee colonies make their way through the Northern Great Plains of North and South Dakota. The area is not usually a stop for pollination services, but a place where beekeepers go to generate a honey crop and improve the health of their colonies. Most of the colonies that summer in the NGP are trucked across the country to pollinate fruiting crops like apples, cherries, melons, and almonds during the winter, or are otherwise moved south to produce packaged bee colonies or queens. According to the USGS study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, NGP has long been used by beekeepers as an unofficial refuge for commercial production because of its large area of pollinator-friendly habitat: uncultivated pasture and rangelands, and cultivated flowering crops like sunflower, canola, and alfalfa.

However, increased production of biofuels, driven by policy changes that subsidize the planting of soy and corn, rising prices of these crops, and reductions in conservation programs in  the recent Farm Bill all add up to a significant shift in the landscape of the NGP. Researchers note that 1.6 million acres of land in North Dakota originally enrolled in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program have been lost.

Although the study does not attempt to link land use changes with pollinator health criteria, it is clear  that these changes do not benefit pollinators. Corn and soy biofuels are often produced with seeds that are coated in neonicotinoids, a class of highly toxic, systemic and persistent chemicals that multiple studies and sources, beekeepers, and scientists have linked to declines of both wild and managed bees. Neonicotinoids have been linked to a range of both acute and chronic effects on pollinators. Studies have found the insecticides can adversely affect reproduction, impair pollination, and alter behavior. Once these chemicals are used in the environment, their persistence and long half-life means that they remain a problem for beekeepers well into the future. A study published earlier this year found that even when attempting to protect pollinators by planting pollinator habitat and hedgerows around conventional farms, neonicotinoids used onsite can make their way into flowering crops in field margins, putting pollinators in danger.

Replacing uncultivated and flowering crops with biofuels adds additional problems for pollinators. Because most biofuels planted today are also genetically engineered, managed and wild pollinators will continue to lose habitat, as these crops are developed to withstand the use of herbicides, such as glyphosate, and the use of genetically engineered (GE) herbicides continues to increase. Widespread applications of glyphosate to cropland has been implicated in the destruction of pollinator habitat, particularly the monarch butterfly, whose migration route winds through the middle of the U.S.

It is evident that restoring pollinator populations across the country is a complex undertaking that will require a change not only in public policies and incentives for farming, but also chemical-intensive  farming practices. While biofuel subsidies are acting to displace critical pollinator habitat, what is also true is that there are farming systems currently in practice that can grow healthy food, and provide safe, pesticide-free pollinator-friendly habitat at the same time. Jonathan Lundgren, PhD, acclaimed researcher who blew the whistle on USDA’s suppression of scientific findings, is now working to restore sound agricultural practices that protect bees on their  property, Blue Dasher Farm, in South Dakota. As Dr. Lundgren noted in his talk to the 34^th  National Pesticide Forum in Portland, ME this year, the  focus must be on healing the soil and changing on-farm management practices in order to address and reverse the bee problem and our broader biodiversity crisis. Consumers can assist in these efforts by supporting s
afer agricultural practices and only purchasing products certified organic. Under organic certification, farmers are required to maintain or improve the health of the soil, and through defined criteria and a public process under the NOSB, are prohibited  from using highly toxic, systemic, and persistent pesticides such as neonicotinoids.

For help on how you can get involved to reverse pollinator declines, see Beyond Pesticides’ Bee Protective webpage. And for more information on why organic is the right path for the future of agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides Organic Agriculture program page.

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

Source: PNAS, Scienceblog.com

(Beyond Pesticides September 12, 2016) On Thursday, September 8, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit (Case No. 15-cv-01590-HSG) that challenges changes to the rules that review the potential hazards and need for allowed synthetic and prohibited natural substances used in certified  organic food production. Finding that plaintiffs had established both proper jurisdiction and a viable claim, this ruling allows the case to move forward on its merit. The court will now  be able to review the substantive importance of formal notice and public comment regarding  the rules for organic food production, which were changed dramatically by USDA in 2013.

Plaintiffs in this case, recognized  by the court as “approximately a dozen advocacy and industry groups representing organic farmers, retailers, and consumers,” filed a complaint last April asking the court to require USDA to reconsider its decision on the rule change and reinstitute the agency’s customary public hearing and comment process. Specifically at issue in the lawsuit is a rule that implements the organic law’s “sunset provision,” which since its origins has been interpreted, under a common reading of the law, to require all listed materials to cycle off the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances every five years unless the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) votes by a “decisive” two-thirds majority to relist them. In making its decision, the NOSB is charged with considering public input, new science, and new information on available alternatives to the allowed synthetic substances. Under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), the Secretary may not allow the use of synthetic substances in organic production unless first recommended  by the NOSB.

In September 2013, without any public input, USDA completely reversed this long established process and announced a definitive change in the rule it had been operating under since the inception of the organic program. Under its  new rule, a synthetic material is allowed to remain on the National List in perpetuity unless the NOSB takes initiative to remove it from the List. The judge, agreeing with the plaintiffs, identified the change as significant, as it now requires a two-thirds vote to remove a substance from the National List, unlike the prior procedure which required a two-thirds vote to renew a substance. Furthermore, he acknowledged that prior to the change in the rule that triggered this lawsuit, “USDA’s regulations required the NOSB to consider public comments and vote on” substances on the National List, a process that stands to be lessened or completely lost with USDA’s unilateral agency action to adopt this major policy change.

The judge also acknowledged plaintiffs’ allegations that USDA’s decision weakens “the integrity of the organic standards, degrading the quality of organically labeled food, and negatively affecting the personal health, economic, environmental, and consumer interests of Plaintiffs’ members” through its failure to allow the essential public participation function of organic policy making under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal law that establishes the  procedures for public input into federal policy making. Since USDA never subjected the sunset decision to formal notice and public comment, plaintiffs argue that USDA failed in its duty to ensure that its regulation is consistent with the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) and the standards set forth for approving materials for the National List.

The opportunity to offer public comment on organic stands is historically important to organic consumers and farmers. When it comes to organic food production, consumers expect a high level of scrutiny and are willing to pay a premium with the knowledge that a third-party certifier is evaluating compliance with organic standards. The burgeoning $43 billion organic market relies heavily on a system of public review and input regarding decisions that affect organic production systems and the organic label.   In her declaration to the court, Beyond Pesticides board member Terry Shistar, Ph.D. stated that “USDA’s development and promulgation of the Sunset Notice . . . harms [her] interest in participating in the public process as outlined by the APA [Administrative Procedure Act],” and violates her “interest in ensuring that adequate procedures are in place to protect the integrity of organic food.” Statements like this from a diverse group of  plaintiffs convinced  the judge that the group had sufficiently “alleged that these rules were intended to protect their concrete interests, and that it is ”˜reasonably probable’ that the challenged action will threaten those interests,” squashing arguments from the defendant (USDA) that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

While the judge’s holding in this case is favorable to the plaintiffs, unfortunately this is not the only example of recent attacks to the integrity of the organic label. Another lawsuit recently decided in favor of plaintiffs Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety and Center for Environmental Health challenged  the National Organic Program’s (NOP)  failure to follow proper legal procedures”¯in making a substantial rule change that  allows  contaminants in compost.”¯Though the final decision was a huge victory for organic advocates, it unfortunately was not the end of the road for those fighting to maintain the integrity of the USDA label.

While the courts are understanding that recent actions by USDA  violate  the federal organic law, OFPA, it is critical that the public lets their elected members of Congress (U.S. Representative and Senators) how important organic integrity is and the importance of a strong standard in accordance with the law. To that end, Beyond Pesticides has created the  campaign Save Our Organic, which outlines the USDA  attack on organic and the importance of Congress protecting the integrity of organic standards. Send a letter to your member of Congress and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. It is also important to let the companies that produce organic products know that strong organic standards are critical to public trust in the organic label and the growth of the organic market. Send a letter to companies that often support the weakening of organic standards.

Beyond  Pesticides also tracks the proposals and decisions of the NOSB and assists the public to engage in the public process on reviewing and updating organic standards. See the”¯Keeping Organic Strong”¯webpage to learn more about these and other issues and to find out what you can do to help uphold organic standards.

Beyond Pesticides advocates in its organic food  program and through its”¯Eating with a Conscience  (EWAC)”¯website choosing organic because of the environmental and health benefits to consumers, workers, and rural families. For more information on the benefits of organic agriculture, see Beyond Pesticides’”¯Organic Food program page.

The plaintiffs in the case, represented by counsel from Center for Food Safety, include: Beyond Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Equal Exchange, Food and Water Watch, Frey Vineyards, La Montanita Co-op, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, New Natives, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Northeast Organic Farmers Association Massachusetts, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association,  Organic Consumers Association, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, PCC Natural Markets, and The Cornucopia Institute.

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

Source: Case 3:15-cv-01590-HSG

(Beyond Pesticides, September 9, 2016) On Wednesday, City Council members of South Portland, Maine cast their final votes to pass an ordinance that bans the use of toxic lawn pesticides on private and public land. The ban, which passed 6-1, is an important public health measure in the protecting 25,000 residents,  the largest jurisdiction in the state to-date to adopt such as measure. In 2014, the Town of Ogunquit, Maine was the first jurisdiction to ban toxic lawn pesticides on both private and public land.

Maine’s status as one of only seven states that does not preempt  local governments’ authority to restrict the use of pesticides on land within their jurisdiction empowers local governments to take this kind of protective action. Supporters of this ordinance, led by the local organization Protect South Portland, and supported by statewide organizations and  Beyond Pesticides, put together an effective campaign to educate council members, the public, and the media about the dangers of pesticides, and the effectiveness of organic land management practices that do not utilize toxic pesticides.

Under the legislation, the provisions will be phased in, starting with city property on May 1, 2017, private property beginning May 1, 2018, and to golf courses on May 1, 2019. The law allows time for transition, training, and the development of a public education program. The measure does not establish fines for violations, opting for a community education approach as the city gauges compliance before considering instituting penalties in the future. When first proposed, the ordinance  included  fines of up to $1,000 per violation following an initial warning. The new ordinance puts oversight, outreach, and compliance in the hand of the city’s sustainability coordinator, Julie Rosenbach.

In August, Ms. Rosenbach wrote in a memo to the city council: “Our intention is not to approach implementation of this ordinance in a punitive way, but rather to use education and outreach to promote non-toxic land care practices and help the community to comply with this ordinance.”

Public records will be maintained  detailing how complaints and compliance are handled, allowing officials the opportunity to review the effectiveness of the law. Recognizing the potential limitations of an education program alone, however, some members of the council indicated the possibility of revisiting the ordinance to add other enforcement measures after more data is known about local pesticide use, a tool that could prove very beneficial to bringing South Portland into full compliance with the new ordinance

Because the focus of the ordinance is on prohibiting use of the now banned pesticides, it does not prohibit chemical sales. In defining allowed materials, the ordinance defines allowed materials in lawn care, including “minimum risk” by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and those on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s List of Allowed Substances. The local ban exempts commercial agriculture and provides waivers for using pesticides in situations that threaten the public health and safety, such as the presence of disease carrying pests or invasive species.

As  Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gina McGarthy said  during her presentation to Montgomery County, Maryland that national change starts at the local level. The passing of this ordinance in South Portland is similar to those passed in the town of Ogunquit, ME,  and  Takoma Park and  Montgomery County, Maryland. Ordinances have been adopted in other jurisdictions in Maine and across the country that focus solely on pesticide use on public property. The legislatures  of Connecticut and Maryland  passed laws this year that restrict the retail sale of  products containing neonicotinoid pesticides. And,  the Governor Minnesota issued an executive order restricting neonicotinoid use, while  numerous municipalities across the country  have taken similar step to stop use on their properties.

There is movement across the country to adopt ordinances that stop pesticide use on public property and, where allowed, private property. Pesticides when used move off the target site through drift and runoff, exposing non-target sites and people. For information on this kind of organic lawn care, see  Beyond Pesticides  lawns and landscape program page.

Wondering how you can create change similar to that taking place in South Portland? Take action! Regardless of whether your local jurisdiction is preempted by state law, you can still work to get toxic chemicals  out of your community. It takes a lot of work and commitment, but it can be done with some perseverance. It’s important to find support —friends, neighbors, and other people who share your concerns about environmental health. It’s also essential to reach out to your local elected officials  and government. Beyond Pesticides has resources and factsheets available to help you organize in your community. You can also call (202-543-5450) or email ([email protected]) Beyond Pesticides for one-on-one consultation about the strategies you can take to effect change.

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

Source: Portland Press Herald