(Beyond Pesticides, May 28, 2024) Public comments are due May 29, 2024. With 40 percent of all vegetables grown in the U.S. coming from the state of California, the current state level process to define “regenerative agriculture” could have major impact on land management practices that address the current climate, biodiversity, and health crises. That is, according to advocates, if the process, directed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) departs from a history of poorly defined and unenforceable terms like Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Sustainable Agriculture. Virtually all consumers of food have a stake in the outcome of the definition of “regenerative,” so the current public comment period, which closes tomorrow, May 29, 2024, can help influence the outcome.

As Beyond Pesticides has reported previously, the term “regenerative” is now increasingly being advanced as a loosely defined alternative to the organic standard and label, which is transparent, defined, certified, enforced, and subject to public input. The  publication AgFunderNews (AFN) in February published its updated “2024 list of agrifood corporates making regenerative agriculture commitments,” a who’s who of the largest food and agribusiness corporations worldwide. The list includes companies such as ADM, Cargill, Danone, General Mills, Tyson, Unilever, Walmart, and more with commitments to millions of acres in their supply chain practicing “regenerative” agriculture with target dates ranging from 2024 to 2050. AFN reporting on the “regenerative” trend states, “[O]ne big challenge is that ‘regenerative agriculture’ still has no set definition. While that still holds true, the bigger observation in 2024 is the number of companies leaning heavily on sustainability jargon to describe goals. With greenwashing pretty rampant nowadays, it will be important to check beneath the PR-friendly language at the actual acres, dates, practices and prescriptions.”

CDFA’s Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel (SAP) proposes a framework for developing a definition:

• Being applicable, relevant, and useful for California Agriculture.
• Leading to positive impacts on California’s environmental, social, human health, and economic goals, including climate goals.
• Providing measurable and verifiable outcomes, keeping in mind variability throughout the state, and – emphasizing outcomes farmers and ranchers can easily measure and that are not economically burdensome to measure.
• Allowing for context specific outcomes (in terms of scale, geographic location, diverse and/or innovative agricultural systems, goals, etc.)
• Include the idea that building soil health, including elements of physical quality, carbon sequestered, soil biodiversity, and alleviation of climate change (e.g., practices funded by the CDFA Healthy Soils Program) as a foundational element.

However, Beyond Pesticides states in comments that this framework will be not effective if definitions, policies, and rules fail to meet the following criteria:

1. Definition clarity and enforceability;
2. Systems plan (establishes baseline for management practices intended to create resiliency and prevent pests);
3. Rigorous standard for allowed/prohibited substances list with mechanism for incorporating real-time data on hazards and alternatives into reevaluation of allowed list;
4. Certification and enforcement system (third party enforcement);
5. Process for public participation to ensure a feedback loop for continuous improvement; and
6. Funding to ensure elements are carried out in a robust way.

Regenerative agriculture must be organic.
Organic agriculture, which has been widely adopted in California, fits the framework proposed by the SAP as well as the criteria above.

>> Tell CDFA and USDA that regenerative agriculture starts with organic. Comments to CDFA are due May 29, 2024.

Organic agriculture can mitigate climate change.
Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. In a recent article in Science, Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. According to the International Panel of Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The contribution of animal agriculture has been estimated at 14.5% to 87% or more of total GHG emissions. These estimates include emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ammonia. The carbon dioxide contribution largely comes from converting land from natural forest to pasture or cropland.

“Regenerative” agriculture is widely considered to be a solution for reducing or even reversing these impacts. Unfortunately, a movement by promoters of chemical-intensive agriculture has fooled some environmentalists into supporting toxic “regenerative” agriculture. While recognizing practices that sequester carbon in the soil—practices that are central to organic agriculture—the so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by these groups ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception.

Organic practices preserve natural lands and biodiversity. Natural forests are more effective than tree plantations in sequestering carbon. Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, which also reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides. Organic farms are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife, as required by § 205.200 of the regulations and per the § 205.2 definition of Natural resources of the operation.”

Organic agriculture benefits human health. By avoiding the use of antibiotics and toxic pesticides, organic agriculture protects farmworkers and consumers. In addition, studies have found organically grown plant foods and milk to be nutritionally superior to those produced by chemical-intensive agriculture.

The National Organic Program provides for clarity and enforceability, while providing processes that are open and transparent to growers, consumers, and the public at large. As an established program, it also has its own funding mechanism. CDFA should start by defining “regenerative” as—at a minimum—meeting organic standards.

It is crucial, as we move forward with a plan to harness agriculture in the fight against climate change, biodiversity collapse, and health problems, that we not be misled into promoting the same practices that have created the problem. As aptly stated by Jeff Moyer of the Rodale Institute, “We believe that in order to be regenerative, you have to start by being organic. It’s a little disingenuous to say you can regenerate soil health and sequester carbon and still use nitrogen fertilizers and synthetic pesticides. What you’re really saying is equivalent to saying ‘I want to be healthy as a person, but I still want to smoke cigarettes.'”

>> Tell CDFA and USDA that regenerative agriculture starts with organic. Comments to CDFA are due May 29, 2024.

Letter to California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel 
We support the urgent need to adopt regenerative agricultural practices that mitigate climate change, improve soil health, restore biodiversity, enhance ecosystems, and contribute to human health. Past experience with poorly defined and unenforceable terms like Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Sustainable Agriculture raises serious problems that well-intentioned efforts to define regenerative could repeat and, in the process, stifle the growth and continuous improvement of certified organic practices. Organic is a necessary baseline or foundation of a new regenerative standard because it eliminates the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers in meeting the existential environmental and health crises of our time. A standard for “regenerative” must do this as well if it is to be helpful and not harmful in advancing the critical changes needed in this time of crises.

CDFA’s Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel (SAP) proposes a framework for developing a definition. However, that framework will be ineffective if definitions, policies, and rules fail to meet these criteria:

1. Definition clarity and enforceability;
2. Systems plan (establishes baseline for management practices intended to create resiliency and prevent pests);
3. Rigorous standard for allowed/prohibited substances list with a mechanism for incorporating real-time data on hazards and alternatives into reevaluation of allowed list;
4. Certification and enforcement system (third party enforcement);
5. Process for public participation to ensure a feedback loop for continuous improvement; and
6. Funding to ensure elements are carried out in a robust way.

Regenerative agriculture must be organic.
Organic agriculture, which has been widely adopted in California, fits the issues in the framework proposed by the SAP as well as the criteria above.

Organic agriculture can mitigate climate change.
Agriculture is a major contributor to climate change. In a recent article in Science, Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. According to the International Panel of Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced GHG emissions. The contribution of animal agriculture has been estimated at 14.5% to 87% or more of total GHG emissions. These estimates include emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ammonia. The carbon dioxide contribution largely comes from converting land from natural forest to pasture or cropland.

While recognizing practices that sequester carbon in the soil “regenerative agriculture” employing toxic chemicals ignores the direct climate impacts of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception.

Organic practices preserve natural lands and biodiversity. Natural forests are more effective than tree plantations in sequestering carbon. Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, which also reduces dependence on petroleum-based pesticides. Organic farms are required to “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.

Organic agriculture benefits human health. By avoiding the use of antibiotics and toxic pesticides, organic agriculture protects farmworkers and consumers.

The USDA organic seal is backed by an enforceable inspection system. CDFA should start by defining “regenerative” as—at a minimum—meeting organic standards.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
I am concerned that “regenerative” agriculture, which is widely considered to be a solution for reducing or even reversing climate change, will have negative impacts if not properly defined. Unfortunately, a movement by promoters of chemical-intensive agriculture has fooled some environmentalists into supporting toxic “regenerative” agriculture. The so-called “regenerative agriculture” promoted by these groups ignores the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients as well as for the heat and energy driving chemical reactions. It is important to see through this deception.

The climate crisis and the devastating decline in biodiversity are escalating because of uncontrolled and unnecessary reliance on toxic chemicals. These threats to life require a meaningful holistic strategy to end our fossil fuel dependence and use of materials that release harmful levels of noxious gases (including greenhouse gases).

Agriculture must—across the board and on an expedited five-year schedule—shift to organic practices. Organic practices both sequester carbon and eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Importantly, the data show that organic agriculture now operates without sacrificing productivity or profitability. While the vested economic interests in the petroleum and chemical industry cling to the status quo, there are good jobs and money to be made in a green economy.

We need a national plan to shift to 100% organic farming. Organic land management is more effective at reducing emissions and sequesters carbon in the soil. There is already a national program for certifying farms that meet organic standards. Organic operations must “comprehensively conserve biodiversity by maintaining or improving all natural resources, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife.”

Undefined “regenerative” agriculture falls short by ignoring the direct climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizers, the damage to soil health and ecosystem services caused by pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and the fact that pesticide and fertilizer manufacturing is dependent on fossil fuels—as key ingredients and for the heat and energy-driving chemical reactions. 

We need a national land management plan.  Preserving natural land increases biodiversity, reducing dependence on petroleum-based pesticides, and is more effective in sequestering carbon. Biodiversity buffers against damage from climate change—for example, by protecting shorelines from storm damage.

Preserving natural lands and transitioning farms to organic production should be the cornerstones to combating climate change.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 24, 2024) Even allegedly “low-toxicity” pesticides such as flupyradifurone (insecticide), azoxystrobin, and difenoconazole (fungicides) pose adverse health effects to solitary ground-nesting squash bees (Xenoglossa pruinose), according to a study published in Biological Sciences. Fungicide exposure led to less pollen collected per flower, while exposure to flupyradifurone (FPF) produced larger offspring (which make it more challenging for them to fly). Simultaneous exposure to the three pesticides “induced hyperactivity in female squash bees relative to both the control and single pesticide exposure, and reduced the number of emerging offspring per nest compared to individual pesticide treatments.” With United Nations Food and Agriculture Organizations-sponsored World Bee Day earlier this week, now more than ever advocates are calling for the elimination of toxic insecticide classes, such as neonicotinoids and butanolides, and their wholesale replacement with organic land management principles.

This study was written by Sabrina Rondeau, PhD, postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Biology at the University of Ottawa, and Nigel E. Raine, PhD, professor at University of Guelph’s School of Environmental Science. Published on March 20, 2024, the researchers delve into the individual and co-exposure impacts of two fungicides and one insecticide, which is important, given the documented synergistic effects of chemical mixtures cited in other peer-reviewed, scientific studies.

The researchers used “10 hoop houses covered with bee-proof mesh and divided in the middle by a flexible wall made from transparent, colorless polyethylene plastic sheeting to obtain 20 experimental units” alongside Lakefield, Ontario, Canada in 2020. The site was sprayed with flupyradifurone and the two fungicides one week before the squash bees were introduced to their hoop houses. None of the pesticides were sprayed the following year. Over the three weeks of the experiment, Drs. Rondeau and Raine gathered data on nesting activity, foraging activity, motor activity, crop yield and flower counts, offspring production, and pesticide residues. Regarding the results specifically for the fungicides, “[o]n average, female squash bees collected 32% less pollen per single flower visit () and spent 24% less time handling squash flowers () in enclosures treated with Quadris Top [azoxystrobin and difenoconazole].” Regarding chemical mixture of Sivanto (FPF) and Quadris Top, “Computing simple main effects of pesticide treatments revealed that the mean number of offspring that emerged per nest was significantly lower for bees that were exposed to both pesticides compared to those that were only exposed to either [pesticide product.]”

This is not the first time that neonicotinoid insecticides have been found to have adverse effects on pollinators and other living organisms, including humans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered FPF in January 2015, deeming the insecticide safer than on-the-market neonicotinoids such as imidacloprid, even though their own field studies reveal high mortality in adult bees within 24 hours of treatment.

The European Union followed suit, with the Directorate-General for Health and Safety authorizing its approval in November 2015 in spite of advocates warnings of its hasty roll-out. Organizations including Beyond Pesticides have taken action by advocating for the passage of Saving America’s Pollinators Act in 2019. Groups such as Center for Biological Diversity have engaged in litigation on Bayer’s proposal to EPA to permit expanded use of FPF on over 300,000 acres of tobacco-growing land nationwide in 2018. A 2020 study published in PLOS One affirms the concerns of pollinator friends, finding that FPF and sulfoxaflor were found to increase cell death (apoptosis) and oxidative stress in honey bees. Another study also published in 2020 in Biological Sciences found that FPF has the same mode of action as neonics, with potential to remain in the soil for months or years after its original application.

Difenoconazole, meanwhile, has been found to have possible links to an increase in cancer (possible carcinogen) and suspected endocrine disruption. Additionally, a 2023 study published in Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that strawberries sprayed with this fungicide reduced their flavor and fragrance, posing implications for the economic wellbeing of strawberry farmers who remain on the chemical treadmill. Azoxystrobin also has adverse health effects on humans, including eye irritation and nutrient absorption disruption, as well as potential toxicity to aquatic organisms due to algae blooms, permanence in groundwater, and leaching from soil into living organisms. Among the over 2,000 samples tested for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2020 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report, 185 different pesticide residues were detected; of that 185, the fungicide azoxystrobin appeared the most frequently (146 times). Litigation on azoxystrobin has challenged its use on a New York State golf course and EPA fined Syngenta $1.2 million for, among other reasons, the pesticide company’s failure to maintain study records used for the pesticide’s registration—as required by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)—that characterized the food residues resulting from the use of azoxystrobin and propiconazole. For more information, see Daily News sections on neonicotinoids, pollinators, and chemical mixtures. See also the adverse effects of difenoconazole and azoxystrobin, as well the corresponding peer-reviewed scientific literature, in the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.

After engaging in decades of advocacy on biodiversity protections, public health, and holistic climate action, advocates continue to push for the expansion of organic land management principles and the National Organic Program. Why? The long-term economic and ecological benefits of organic food systems are reinforced by the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, which renders toxic petrochemical-based pesticides, including neonicotinoids, obsolete. See Bee Protective: Pollinators and Pesticides to see a slew of educational resources, including videos, infographics, regulatory actions, and scientific literature, on the adverse effects of toxic pesticides on pollinator species. At-home gardeners and aspiring organic farmers can view the Pollinator-Friendly Seeds and Nursery Directory to identify organic seed companies in your state/region. Whether you are a veteran beekeeper or just getting started, BEE Protective Beekeeper Resources offers lists of state extension schools by region, as well as state/local and national groups, to establish community with like-minded groups.

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

Source: Biological Sciences

(Beyond Pesticides, May 23, 2024)  A study recently published in the journal Nature compared the impact of organic and conventional food production using eight environmental health indicators and found that organic food has a significantly lower environmental impact than conventional food production for six of the eight indicators, including a lower potential for contributing to acidification of the environment, energy use, and biodiversity loss. For the analysis, scientists reviewed 100 different “life cycle assessments” (LCA) of organic and conventionally grown food products from cradle-to-farm gate.   

LCA is a commonly used methodology to estimate food production system impacts on the environment through resource depletion and pollutant emissions. The results—that organic food production is less impactful on the environment—add to the robust body of research that underscores the importance of organic farming to the development of a sustainable global food system while addressing climate change. Beyond Pesticides has long argued that one of the most powerful tools in fighting global warming is organic agriculture, as it sequesters atmospheric carbon, eliminates the use of fossil fuel-based synthetic fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, and provides environmental and human health benefits. This study and most of the 100 studies it evaluates, do not recognize that conventional industrial agriculture relies on a treadmill of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, from cradle to grave, exacerbating the climate crisis.   

The impact of food production on the environment has been well documented. In 2015, it was estimated that food production accounted for 34% of the total emissions of greenhouse gases for the year. In addition, it is estimated that global food systems account for 70% of the world’s freshwater use and 78% of freshwater pollution. Agriculture is also responsible for much of the change in land use (primarily deforestation) and loss of biodiversity.  

Study Methodology 

To measure the impact of organic versus conventional food production systems, the Nature study looks at data from 100 studies, including 75 comparative studies of organic and conventional food production and 25 studies of organic food production between 2000 and 2020. Products analyzed include animals (milk, pig, cattle, lamb, seafood, chicken, and eggs) and plants (vegetables, grain and cereals, fruits, nuts, and aromatic beverages such as tea) from geographical regions around the world, except Africa for which no data was available. 

The study includes impacts per mass (amount of food produced) and per production unit (amount of land farmed). Significant differences in the environmental impact of organic versus conventional systems are found when measured per production unit. Specifically, organic dairy production has an estimated 22% lower impact on Global Warming Potential (GWP), which measures the potential increase in acidity of an ecosystem. Organic systems demonstrate a 47% lower eutrophication potential (or potential enrichment of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems with nutrients), likely due to the lack of use of chemical fertilizers. Energy use is 32% lower in organic systems. Eco-toxicity, or the “fate, exposure, and effects of eco-toxic substances on different species in soil and water,” is significantly lower for organics, given the lack of use of toxic pesticides. Water use analysis finds a generally lower level of use of water in organic systems, likely due to the increased water retention capacity of healthy soil.    

Study Limitations 

The Nature study finds no significant difference in the environmental impacts of organic versus conventional farming systems when measured per unit of mass produced. When measured by volume, the environmental impacts of conventional practices are watered down, in part due to the type of data collected. Specifically, the review cites the lack of information on biodiversity Impacts and eco-toxicity potential. The study also cites limitations to LCA approach and calls for more research to “model potential biodiversity loss, pesticide effects and changes in soil organic carbon in LCA…although the use of pesticides affects both toxicity and biodiversity impacts, (they) were rarely considered in LCA of food products.”  

Thus, while the study demonstrates the need to transition to organic agriculture as soon as possible to stop the increasingly devastating effects of climate change, it also demonstrates the limitations of the LCA (life cycle assessments) methodology to fully understand the impacts of agriculture on the environment. Few of the studies in the Nature analysis include data on soil carbon sequestration (SOC), meaning only a portion of the environmental benefits of organic agriculture are being captured.  

Measuring Sequestration of Carbon (SOC) 

As Beyond Pesticides reported previously, under organic management, healthy soil can absorb and store 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre foot of soil annually. This translates to about 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per acre drawn down from the air and sequestered into organic matter in soil. (It is noteworthy that use of synthetic fertilizers undermines the carbon-capture ability of some kinds of terrain, such as salt marshes.) A fact often overlooked by policy makers—and researchers—in examining climate strategies is that carbon-sequestering soil practices are federally mandated in certified organic agriculture. 

Many readers are familiar with one of the first research efforts on this topic:  For over 40 years, the Rodale Institute has been studying and comparing organic and conventional agricultural practices at their 386-acre farm in Pennsylvania (see full report here). Three agricultural systems have been developed over time: the “conventional” system, which represents a typical U.S. grain farm that fertilizes with synthetic nitrogen and controls weeds with synthetic herbicides; the “organic legume” system, which represents an organic grain system of annual grain and cover crops with leguminous cover crops for fertility; and the “organic manure” system, which represents an organic dairy or beef operation of annual feed grain and perennial forage crops with leguminous cover crops and periodic applications of composted manure for fertility. They found that after 40 years, the SOC was significantly higher in the organic manure system than in conventional and organic legume systems. In addition, microbial biomass, diversity, and activity is higher in the organic plots and those plots had reduced soil compaction, all measures of good soil health. Without sufficient measures of SOC, a substantial portion of the organic story is not being told. Beyond Pesticides corroborates the findings in the Rodale study that organic agriculture is a crucial solution to address cascading crises relating to climate change and public health.  

Negative Climate Impacts of Synthetic Fertilizers and Pesticides 

As reported by Beyond Pesticides in October 2021 before COP26, the use of synthetic fertilizers is a particular and noxious contributor to the rising planetary temperature. This happens largely through these products’ emissions of nitrous oxide (NOx)—another potent greenhouse gas that also pollutes the air and feeds the development of ozone. (For more, see here and here).  

Measuring Biodiversity 

In the current Nature study, the Biodiversity Impact assessment is limited to only three studies of dairy farms and has widely varying results. It has long been established that food production is a major contributor to global biodiversity loss. Over one-third of land is currently used for agriculture and expansion of food production is predicted to reduce habitat for approximately 88% of terrestrial birds, mammals, and amphibians by 2050. While this study did not recognize a meaningful way of measuring biodiversity loss, the 2021 United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report, Food System Impacts on Biodiversity Loss, identifies the global food system as the primary driver of biodiversity loss. The UNEP report points to the conversion of natural ecosystems to crop production and pasture, with concomitant use of toxic chemicals, monoculture, and production of greenhouse gases. This highlights the limitations of a “life cycle assessment” approach in the Nature study.  

Animal Food Production and Climate Change 

A similar blind spot of this study’s methodology is in not addressing the larger impact of animal production, organic or conventional, on climate change. According to the International Panel of Climate Change, agriculture and forestry account for as much as 25% of human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The contribution of animal agriculture has been estimated at 14.5% to 87% or more of total GHG emissions. These estimates include emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ammonia. The carbon dioxide contribution comes from converting land from natural forest to pasture or cropland.   

Diets that include animal products have been shown to contribute significantly more to climate change than diets that include low amounts or no animal products. For example, a 2023 study published in Nature Food, examined 570 LCAs and found that compared to high meat diets, the diets of vegans produce 25% of the greenhouse gas emissions, 27% of the eutrophication, 34% of the biodiversity loss, and use 46% of the water. Even between low meat-eaters and high meat-eaters there was a 30% reduction in climate impacts.  

Cost 

Another study in Nature Communications from February 2024 looks at not only the difference in climate impacts between animal-based and plant-based diets, but also the difference in nutrition and cost to consumers. The study finds that diets in Sweden that include plant-based alternatives to meat or whole foods, such as legumes as the protein source, emit 30-52% fewer greenhouse gases, and use 20-45% less land and 14-27% less water. Diets of plant-based meat alternatives are comparable in nutritional value to meat-based diets, except for vitamin B12, vitamin D, and selenium. These diets also enhanced iron, magnesium, folate, and fiber supplies, and decreased saturated fat. The study also finds that while these diets are lower in protein, they still meet or exceed dietary recommendations. A notable finding is that diets of plant-based alternatives to meat (often ultra-processed, containing genetically modified ingredients) increase the cost of food to consumers by 3-5%, although a whole food diet decreases food costs by 4-17%.   

Critics of organic agriculture have long justified the use of toxic chemicals in food production by the increase in the quantity of food that can be produced with conventional practices. The Rodale Institute found that their organic manure plots meet the output average for other plots in the county, which primarily follow chemical-intensive practices. The organic legume plots and non-tilled plots both have lower production rates than the county average (20% and 6.7% respectively), but the financial loss may be compensated for by reduced labor and materials costs.  

The Rodale Institute finds that the total cost of operations on organic farms is significantly lower than on conventional farms and the addition of organic price premiums makes their organic plots much more profitable than the conventional plots. Importantly, organic grain crops are surpassing the yields of conventional crops during drought years, likely owing to the increased soil health, and demonstrating the ability of organic crops to withstand climate change better than conventional practices.   

The true cost of conventional, petrochemical pesticide use is critical to the calculation of overall benefit. However, many of these costs are not borne by the pesticide user, but by society or taxpayers who bear the cost of environmental and human health harms, lost ecosystem services such as die-off of pollinators, water contamination, and the cost of fighting climate-induced fires and flooding. (See Beyond Pesticides database of Pesticide Induced Diseases and Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management).   

A Cautionary Note on Defining Regenerative Agriculture  

Undefined “regenerative” agriculture risks derail the urgent need to end the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers and their direct negative climate impacts, including damage to soil health, human health, and ecosystem services. Regenerative and no-till farmers can, and often do, continue to rely on petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides, including glyphosate-based herbicide products that impose adverse health impacts, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, on farmers, farmworkers, frontline communities, and the broader public. 

Surveys collected in a 2019 Friends of the Earth report, Pesticides and Soil Health, “… indicate that the majority of no-till farmers [in this study] rely on herbicides such as glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. In fact, 86% of No-Till Farmer readers said they planned to plant Roundup Ready corn in 2017, while 80 percent planned to plant Roundup Ready soybeans, and some 92 percent planned to use glyphosate for weed control.”  

Organic Agriculture  

Advocates of regenerative organic agriculture, including Beyond Pesticides, contend that organic certification as a baseline in defining regenerative agriculture is crucial to address compounding crises relating to climate change, biodiversity, and public health. 

There are examples of regenerative agriculture certifications that take this approach, including Rodale Institute and Regenerative Organic Alliance’s Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) label. Researchers in California quantified the reduction of total pesticide use in organic and conventional farms, noting that there is an “18–31% likely reduction in spraying of pesticides on organically managed fields compared to conventional, and a 27% likely reduction in use of pesticide products with high acute human toxicity for organic versus conventional fields” from 2013 to 2019. However, putting this finding in context requires an assessment of the researchers’ definition of permitted synthetic substances or pesticides, which are allowed on conventional farms but strictly prohibited under federal organic law’s National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances and required organic systems plan. Biodiversity and pollinator health are also shown to be more prevalent on organic versus conventional farms, according to a 2018 Swedish study that corroborates previous studies in 2011 and 2012. 

To engage in opportunities to protect the integrity of organic standards under the Organic Foods Production Act, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Keeping Organic Strong. Stay tuned for updated resources for the Fall 2024 National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) meeting. Each year Beyond Pesticides provides information on the meeting agendas, pertinent proposals, sign-up periods to submit comments to the Board, historical context, and potential strategies in alignment with Actions of the Week. The NOSB, with active public participation, is a powerful tool to shape the future of agriculture and of the environment broadly, as this August 2021 Daily News article underscores. Organic standard setting was envisioned as providing for continuous improvement, democratic input, and full transparency. There are important opportunities for the public to engage with the organic rulemaking process to ensure that the NOSB and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program uphold the values and principles of organic.  

Beyond Pesticides advocates for structural changes through grassroots mobilization of a concerned public, including scientists, physicians, public officials, farmers, and farmworkers. See Tools for Change for a range of strategies, resources, and tips to initiate grassroots advocacy in your community, town, city, or state against pesticide use on lawns, public land, and agricultural lands. 

Urgent Action You Can Take Now  

While negotiations have been stalled for months, the Democrat-led Senate and Republican-led House of Representatives unveiled their respective provisions for the 2024 Farm Bill last week. The office of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, released an initial Senate framework for the (now 2024) Farm Bill. At the same time, U.S. Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, released an outline of the House version, then followed up with more details and legislative language (“Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.”)  

While advocates say that anti-democratic Republican language in the House makes the overall bill unacceptable for advocates, the Senate Democrats’ proposal includes robust support for expanding and strengthening organic product supply chains and domestic production, recognizing their economic, ecological, and public health benefits. House Republican language in support of organic is undermined, according to advocates, by its broad attack on pesticide restrictions and the right to sue chemical manufacturers and allied users of pesticides when harmed. The language, if adopted, is viewed as a crippling setback for efforts to meet the existential health and environmental threats of the day. 

While advocates object to the Republican Farm Bill moving forward because of provisions they say will weaken protections from pesticides and undermine local democratic decision making and the right to sue chemical companies when harmed, there are  elements  in the Senate and House framework that would help nurture the growth of organic agriculture by: 

• Addressing organic certification costs; 
• Funding organic oversight and enforcement; 
• Supporting organic transition; 
• Addressing bottlenecks in organic regulatory actions; 
• Providing mandatory funding for organic research and data collection; 
• Making organic programs work for organic farmers; and 
• Establishing an Organic Agriculture Research Coordinator who will coordinate and establish annual strategic priorities. 

The bipartisan consensus that organic supply chains and markets must continue to be nurtured as recognition of their importance to sustainability, rather than put on the legislative chopping block, is welcomed. Certified organic agriculture has grown over the past four decades from a voluntary standard organized by farmers and grassroots consumers and organizations representing farmers, environmentalists, community leaders, physicians, and rural and urban communities to a $70 billion industry. In the same period, considerable scientific literature continues to underscore  the significance of a wholesale transition to organic  from chemical-intensive food systems to adequately address the cascading crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and public health. 

>> Tell your U.S. Congressional Representative and Senators to support organic agriculture in the Farm Bill, but not at the expense of undermining local and state authority to enact more stringent restrictions of pesticides. 

Join the movement to end the use of fossil fuel-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers in 10 years and receive Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates here.  

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

Sources  

Organic food has lower environmental impacts per area unit and similar climate impacts per mass unit compared to conventional, Nature, May 10, 2024 

Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts, Nature Food, July 20, 2023 

A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks, Nature, October 7, 2020 

Research Shatters Myth of Pesticide Benefits, Beyond Pesticides, Retrospective: Pesticides and You, 2021  

Organic Management Practices Ensure a Sustainable Future, Beyond Pesticides, Retrospective: Pesticides and You, 2021 

(Beyond Pesticides, May 22, 2024) A study in the journal of Environmental Science and Technology Letters, funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the first to find halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) in deep ocean sediment and biota off the coast of California. The test area, known as the Southern California Bight (SCB), is home to historic offshore DDT waste dumping, with part of the SCB designated as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site. 49 HOCs were detected in the sediment and biota, many of which are DDT-related and not previously screened for. The presence of these “unmonitored compounds can significantly contribute to the contaminant body burden across a range of marine taxa,” the study states, which leads to impacts on critical food webs and biodiversity.

While this study is the first to specifically analyze previously overlooked DDT+ compounds, the results are nothing new. There is a body of science around the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of harmful pollutants that continue to lead to a decline in biodiversity, negative impacts on water and soil, and detrimental human health effects.      

To assess the bioavailability of DDT+ and HOCs in the deep ocean food web, this study focused on areas near a dumpsite in the San Pedro Channel between Long Beach, CA, and Santa Catalina Island, CA. Sampling of the sediment and biota occurred in the Santa Cruz Basin and San Pedro Basin, proximal to the dumpsite. The first goal of the study was to determine the presence of overall HOCs with a specific interest in the number of DDT+ compounds within the sediment. The second goal was to “assess the potential for DDT+ bioaccumulation in the deep ocean food web by determining the chemical profiles in one invertebrate and three fish species collected from throughout the water column.” 

For sediment sampling, sediment cores were taken with a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) from three sites. Two of the sites were near visually identified dumped barrels and a ‘no barrel site’ was 90 m from any observed barrels. For the biota, micronekton and fish species (Leuroglossus stilbius, Cyclothone acclinidens, and Melanostigma pammelas) were collected from the water column above the San Pedro Basin and the Santa Cruz Basin. To represent the lowest level of the food web, zooplankton were also analyzed. After sampling, all analyses were performed at San Diego State University and compounds were classified and named according to their mass spectra and retention times.

As a result, the scientists “detected 49 HOCs across all samples, including 15 DDT+ compounds in the sediment and 10 DDT+ compounds in the biota.” This shows that “high DDT+ body burdens were found in biota… indicating widespread DDT+ contamination in the deep ocean… [and] that deep ocean sediment may be a source of DDT+ to the marine food web.” HOCs are known for bioaccumulation and biomagnification, which explains the presence of more compounds in the biota. DDE is the most abundant form of DDT that was identified in the samples, which occurs when DDT breaks down. While the original DDT that was dumped may now be present in different forms, the persistence of these compounds throughout the environment after decades is apparent.

The fish species from the Santa Cruz Basin show “2 to 6 times higher DDT+ abundance compared to the samples collected ∼100 km distant at the examined dumpsite in the San Pedro Basin. This suggests that DDT+ contamination may be widespread beyond [the dumpsite] and may not be directly correlated to the presence of barrels or proximity to the dumpsite.” With 14 known dumping sites off the coast of California, this is concerning. The spread of pesticide pollution is potentially much larger than ever anticipated. “The majority of the DDT+ compounds detected in the sediment and biota were previously detected in SCB birds and marine mammals,” the study continues. “This discovery is critical and suggests that DDT+ from deep ocean sediment enters the water column and subsequently the marine food web.”

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was a widely used insecticide, primarily for mosquitos, that became popular in the 1940’s. It was later banned in the United States in 1972 after its high toxicity to wildlife and humans became publicly accepted after Rachel Caron’s book Silent Spring. At that time, Montrose Chemical Corporation, the largest producer of DDT, had disposed of DDT waste into the previously permitted deep-ocean dump sites in the San Pedro and Santa Monica Basins. While the Palos Verdes Shelf is a Superfund site to acknowledge the contamination, EPA continues to state that the DDT pollution does not pose any risks to humans for being in the water or consuming fish collected from this area. According to this study, “EPA suggested that DDT manufacturing waste may have been bulk-dumped (i.e., not containerized) near the dumpsites rather than disposed in barrels.” In addition, documents indicate that approximately 40,000 pounds per year of DDT and other harmful chemicals could have been disposed of between the 1930’s and 1972 in the SCB.

There is much “uncertainty in past estimates of the total magnitude of DDT pollution in the SCB” and a lack of thorough studies. “Most DDT surveys examine four to eight typical compounds… [but] recent work indicates that marine mammals inhabiting the SCB are exposed to more than 45 DDT-related contaminants,” the scientists say. These contaminants are known as DDT+, which includes DDE, DDD, DDX, and further degradation byproducts. With the lack of studies around the amount of contamination and health risks, despite EPA’s assurance that there are none, there is a need for further investigation.  

Most concerning is the bioaccumulation (concentration over time of individual organisms) and biomagnification (exponential increase in concentrations throughout the levels of the food web) that causes a cascade of issues leading all the way up to humans. Since the SCB “has some of the highest recorded concentrations of DDT in the world due to the discharge of DDT manufacturing waste from 1947 to 1982 by the Montrose Chemical Corporation,” all levels of the food web are at risk of exposure. When zooplankton have levels of contamination, they pass this on to the micronekton that consume them. Pesticide load then travels through the trophic levels into small fish and crustaceans before continuing to larger fish and mammals. HOCs, including DDT, are moving up through the deep ocean food webs into species that are directly consumed by humans.

A recent Daily Breeze article highlights this study and interviewed the authors, who further shared the importance of studying the effects from historic waste dumping and their research discoveries. “‘It’s providing the link that there’s a potential that the source of DDT to the food web could be coming from deep ocean sediments…coming off of the Palos Verdes Shelf,” said Margaret Stack, a research specialist at San Diego State University. The two basins where Stack and her co-authors collected samples from are 60 miles apart, and she addressed the importance of this when saying, “‘this broad distribution of DDT pollution in the Southern California environment [shows] we still maybe don’t know the boundary of where DDT pollution is occurring.”

Additional studies are also concerned about the long-lasting presence of HOCs such as DDT. A study from the University of California states that “substantial amounts of DDT remain in these sediments, which are largely unaltered after more than 70 years.” This made the researchers ask questions: “How much DDT waste was disposed offshore? When and where did the disposal occur? Was the DDT waste containerized as once suggested or bulk dumped as indicated more recently by the EPA? Have these wastes persisted in a manner that can lead to ongoing ecological effects?” While the majority of these questions are still unanswered after their study, the persistence of DDT has been documented and ecosystem and health effects have been observed that “include cancer in sea lions and bioaccumulation in endangered California Condors… [and] generational health effects from maternal DDT exposure.”

While much research still needs to be conducted on the long-term effects in the environment for historic pesticide waste, it brings to the forefront how important it is to eliminate current practices that expose all organisms to toxic materials. Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to bring an end to petrochemical pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use by 2032, which will save future generations from the concerns highlighted in these studies. A transition to organic is the answer, such as with organic agriculture and choosing organic food to protect the health of the environment and all its inhabitants. DDT and equivalent products in use today can instead be replaced with safer mosquito management, and individuals can make The Safer Choice by learning how to avoid hazardous home, garden, community, and food use pesticides.

To get involved, reference the Action of the Week and utilize Beyond Pesticides Resources. Non-toxic Lands and Landscapes and ManageSafe™ are also great references for least-toxic control of pests in the home and garden. Become an advocate today to help make changes in your community and to join in the organic movement. 

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

Source:

Stack, M.E. et al. (2024) ‘Identification of DDT+ in deep ocean sediment and biota in the Southern California bight’, Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 11(5), pp. 479–484. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00115.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 21, 2024) In a first-of-its kind series of biomonitoring studies published in Agrochemicals, researchers identified the presence of the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D in all pregnant participants from both cohorts in 2010-2012 and 2020-2022. The findings from this research are not surprising given the explosion of toxic petrochemical pesticides in the Midwest region of the United States. “The overall level of dicamba use (kilograms applied in one hundred thousands) in the U.S. has increased for soybeans since 2015 and slightly increased for cotton and corn,” the authors report, based on U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service surveys. “The overall level of 2,4-D use (kilograms applied in one hundred thousands) in the U.S. was highest in 2010 for wheat, soybeans, and corn. The amount of 2,4-D applied increased the most for soybeans and corn from 2010 to 2020.” The researchers focused on the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, given the increase in dicamba and 2,4-D during the study period for both cohorts (2010-2022).

The researchers are based at Indiana University School of Medicine in the Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Quebec Toxicology Center within the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, and Benbrook Consulting Services. Charles Benbrook, PhD one of the authors, served as an expert witness in herbicide litigation but stepped down as executive director of the Heartland Health Research Alliance to avoid any conflicts of interest pertaining to the studies cited in this report. The study was published online on February 20, 2024. The methodology included the analysis of urine samples from 2010-2012 Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study that enrolled 10,0037 pregnant participants from eight study sites across the three states, as well as a “smaller nested case-control study” in which 61 samples were gathered from women enrolled in the original study, in the first trimester in 2020-2022 periods, and based specifically in Indiana. “Cases were selected as participants in which any of the following occurred: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, spontaneous preterm birth, gestational diabetes, stillbirth, or fetal demise < 20 weeks,” according to the researchers. The study identified metabolites found within the samples evaluated, “including herbicides (dicamba, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T)), organophosphates insecticides (malathion dicarboxylic acid (MDA), para-nitrophenol (PNP), 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCPy), 2-diethylamino-6-methylpyrimidin-4-ol (DEAMPY), and 2-isopropyl-6-methyl-4-pyrimidinol (IMPY)), and synthetic pyrethroids insecticides (cis-3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid (cis-DCCA), trans-3-(2,2-Dichlorovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid (trans-DCCA), 3-Phenoxybenzoic acid (3-PBA), 4-Fluoro-3-phenoxybenzoic acid (4-F-3-PBA), and cis-3-(2,2-Dibromovinyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid (cis-DBCA)).”

“We found that dicamba in pregnant study participants increased significantly in the more recent Midwest cohort from 2020 to 2022 relative to the earlier cohort from 2010 to 2012,” the researchers arrive at this conclusion based on existing and recent studies. “Concentration levels of 2,4-D also increased in the more recent cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant.”

There are a plethora of studies that demonstrate the adverse health effects of both dicamba and 2,4-D, even at low levels. The research reported in Agrochemicals adds to the knowledge of widespread exposure and adverse effects. For example, a 2021 study published in Toxicology found individuals working or residing in areas with frequent pesticide use, including 2,4-D, experience more incidences of neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) relative to the general population. Additionally, studies published earlier this year in Toxics and Environmental Sciences Europe found increased instances of cancer, including liver cancer, as well as endocrine disruption and metabolic disorders via inducement of oxidative stress from chronic exposure to 2,4-D. A troubling trend found in a separate study published in Global Pediatric Health found that young people are facing an unprecedented rise in liver disorders and metabolic syndrome. Tracking the latest science, particularly regarding pesticide exposure and chemical mixtures, can help bridge the existing research gaps.

Regarding dicamba, exposure to the toxic herbicide has been linked to various cancers according to a 2020 research study published by the National Institute of Health in International Journal of Epidemiology. Dicamba has also been linked to neurotoxicity, birth defects, and kidney and liver damage, not to mention posing harm to birds, fish, and other aquatic organisms, according to various peer-reviewed studies identified in the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management. Dicamba also causes serious damage to non-GE (genetically engineered), non-target plants, damaging habitat and food sources for various organisms, especially for birds, according to fieldwork by Audubon of Arkansas. See Daily News sections on dicamba and 2-4,D to learn more about the latest regulatory decisions and scientific literature pertaining to these two toxic pesticides.

There has been a flurry of litigation, industry reaction, and corresponding actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on dicamba since dicamba-tolerant soybeans and corn entered the domestic market back in 2016 when EPA initially registered dicamba-based products such as Xtendimax™. In 2020, the Ninth Circuit nullified “EPA’s 2018 conditional registration of three dicamba weed killer products for use on an estimated 60 million acres of DT (dicamba-tolerant through GE) soybeans and cotton,” finding that EPA did not adequately consider adverse health effects from over-the-top (OTT) spraying of dicamba in approving its conditional registration. Again, earlier this year in February, the U.S. District Court for Arizona rendered moot the EPA’s 2021 approval of three dicamba-based herbicides after a damning Inspector General Report called out EPA’s violation to both the Endangered Species Act and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the agency’s failure to appropriately manage resistance and the devasting impact this failure has on farmers’ livelihoods.

For context, according to USDA data gathered in 2018 and analyzed by Center for Food Safety, “As much as 1 in every 6 acres of ultra-sensitive soybeans were injured by dicamba drift in 2018 alone, over 15 million acres.” In spite of these developments, EPA announced an existing stocks order permitting use of dicamba products for the 2024 growing season just a few weeks after this most recent court ruling. The latest action regarding dicamba is the proposed registration of a new dicamba-based product for genetically engineered cotton and soybean crops with a 60-day public comment period that ends on June 3, 2024.

Advocates who champion public health, environmental protections, and organic agriculture and land management practices put faith in the decades-long body of scientific literature that demonstrates the adverse health effects of toxic chemicals, substances, and chemicals. In this context, EPA continues to permit the use of toxic pesticides, despite the compounding scientific research that supports Beyond Pesticides’s goal to eliminate toxic petrochemical-based pesticides by 2032, and replace the current system defined by product swapping with one that aligns with the National Organic Program and its National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.

See Keeping Organic Strong to engage with strengthening organic standards and opportunities to improve federal and state policies in support of organic agriculture and land management. See Tools for Change and Parks for a Sustainable Future to learn how to engage in eliminating toxic pesticides in your community. See Eating With a Conscience to learn which toxic pesticide residues are likely to show up in common produce items to better inform your next grocery haul.

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

Source: Agrochemicals

(Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2024)  (Beyond Pesticides, May 20, 2024) The Republican Farm Bill draft in the U.S. House of Representatives, released on Friday, May 17, is a broad attack on pesticide restrictions and the right to sue chemical manufacturers and allied users of pesticides when harmed. “This legislation is a complete nonstarter for the millions of people who want stronger pesticide restrictions, democratic decision making on toxic chemicals in communities, and the right to sue manufacturers and pesticide users when harmed and misled on the hazards of pesticides,” said Jay Feldman, executive director. “We vehemently oppose this Republican legislation with the understanding and experience—bridging farmers, medical practitioners, land managers, local policy makers, and families—that we can and must transition to safe practices and products that protect our health, biodiversity, and climate,” Mr. Feldman continued.

The Farm Bill attack takes place on many critical fronts. The draft legislation:

1. Takes away the right to sue for failure to warn when harmed by pesticides. The language says: “prohibit. . .a court from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for, or penalize or hold liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements with respect to, labeling or packaging that is in addition to or different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.” (SEC. 10204. UNIFORMITY OF PESTICIDE LABELING REQUIREMENTS, p790).

This language shields (gives immunity to) the producers and users of toxic pesticides from liability lawsuits associated with the harm that their products cause. The provision will block lawsuits like those successfully advanced against Bayer/Monsanto for adverse health effects, like cancer, associated with exposure to their products and companies’ failure to warn about these effects on EPA-approved product labels.

2. Prohibits the rights of states and local governments to restrict pesticides and protect public health and the environment. That language says, “prohibit any State, instrumentality or political subdivision thereof. . . from directly or indirectly imposing or continuing in effect any requirements for, or penalize or hold liable any entity for failing to comply with requirements with respect to, labeling or packaging that is in addition to or different from the labeling or packaging approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.” (SEC. 10204. UNIFORMITY OF PESTICIDE LABELING REQUIREMENTS, p790).

In addition, the language says: “A political subdivision of a State shall not impose, or continue in effect, any requirement relating to the sale, distribution, labeling, application, or use of any pesticide or device. . .” (SEC. 10205. AUTHORITY OF STATES, p791)

The attack on local and state authority to restrict pesticides is a bottom-line issue. As momentum builds for local restrictions on pesticide use in the face of ongoing poisoning and contamination, it is clear that effective land management does not require toxic pesticide use. Historically, localities have exercised their democratic right to protect public health and safety where state and federal standards are not adequately protective of their residents. Local governments have exercised this right in many areas affecting the health of people and the environment, such as with smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards.

3. Allows plants genetically engineered with pesticides to be exempt from regulation. The language says, “[P]lant-incorporated protectants [PIPs] resulting from endogenous genetic material found within or that could arise from the plant’s gene pool are exempt from the requirements of this Act.” PIPs are defined as “a substance or mixture of substances intended to be produced and used within a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for its production.” (Subtitle C—Regulatory Reform PART I—FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT, SEC. 10201. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN SUBSTANCES, pp781-784)

PIPs are created when scientists take the gene for a specific pesticidal protein from an organism and introduces the gene into the plant’s genetic material. Then the plant continuously expresses the pesticidal protein that kills the pest when it feeds on the plant. Classified by EPA as “biopesticides” and marketed as a silver bullet for pest control, PIPs are showing insect resistance to this technology and threatening the efficacy of natural microbial organisms used as a part of an organic system, which is focused on soil health and ecosystem balance. (See more.)

4. Broadens exemption of pesticides from regulation. The language says, “Section 25(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136w(b)) is amended to read as follows: ‘‘(b) EXEMPTION OF PESTICIDES.— ‘‘(B) to be of a character which is unnecessary to be subject to this Act in order to carry out the purposes of this Act.” (Subtitle C—Regulatory Reform PART I—FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT, SEC. 10201. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN SUBSTANCES (b) EXEMPTION FROM REGULATION, p781)

The Farm Bill is being debated as advocates call for a global transition to organic agriculture and land care that seriously takes on the challenges of the public health crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency. Approximately every five years, Congress passes a Farm Bill, a comprehensive omnibus bill setting policy and funding for agricultural and food programs. The chemical industry and companies that use their products see the adoption of the bill as an opportunity to adopt amendments to a range of statutes, including pesticide law, to advance its economic interests, not necessarily what is good for people and the environment

>>Tell your U.S. Congressional Representative and Senators to support organic agriculture in the Farm Bill, but not at the expense of undermining local and state authority to enact more stringent restrictions of pesticides.

While Farm Bill negotiations have been stalled for months, the Democrat-led Senate and Republican-led House of Representatives presented their respective visions to amend the 2024 Farm Bill. The office of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, released an initial Senate framework for the (now 2024) Farm Bill. At the same time, U.S. Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, released an outline of the House version, then followed up with more details and legislative language (“Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.”

While advocates say that anti-democratic Republican language in the House makes the overall bill unacceptable for advocates, the Senate Democrats’ proposal includes robust support for expanding and strengthening organic product supply chains and domestic production, recognizing their economic, ecological, and public health benefits. House Republican language in support of organic is undermined, according to advocates, by its broad attack on pesticide restrictions and the right to sue chemical manufacturers and allied users of pesticides when harmed. The language, if adopted, is viewed as a crippling setback for efforts to meet the existential health and environmental threats of the day.

While advocates object to the Republican Farm Bill moving forward because of provisions they say will weaken protections from pesticides and undermine local democratic decision making and the right to sue chemical companies when harmed, there are elements in the Senate and House framework that would help nurture the growth of organic agriculture by:

• Addressing organic certification costs;
• Funding organic oversight and enforcement;
• Supporting organic transition;
• Addressing bottlenecks in organic regulatory actions;
• Providing mandatory funding for organic research and data collection;
• Making organic programs work for organic farmers; and
• Establishing an Organic Agriculture Research Coordinator who will coordinate and establish annual strategic priorities.

The bipartisan consensus that organic supply chains and markets must continue to be nurtured as recognition of their importance to sustainability, rather than put on the legislative chopping block, is welcomed. Certified organic agriculture has grown over the past four decades from a voluntary standard organized by farmers and grassroots consumers and organizations representing farmers, environmentalists, community leaders, physicians, and rural and urban communities to a $70 billion industry. In the same period, considerable scientific literature continues to underscore the significance of a wholesale transition to organic from chemical-intensive food systems to adequately address the cascading crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and public health.

>>Tell your U.S. Congressional Representative and Senators to support organic agriculture in the Farm Bill, but not at the expense of undermining local and state authority to enact more stringent restrictions of pesticides.

Letter to U.S. Senators and Representatives:

I am writing to ask you to support a Farm Bill that helps to grow organic agriculture, but not undermine, or preempt, state and local authority to restrict toxic pesticides. A global transition to organic methods is necessary if we are to seriously take on the challenges of the public health crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency. We cannot achieve these changes with organic if preemption language in the House Republican bill is adopted.

The attack on local and state authority to restrict pesticides is a bottom-line issue. As momentum builds for local restrictions on pesticide use in the face of ongoing poisoning and contamination, it is clear that effective land management does not require toxic pesticide use. Historically, localities have exercised their democratic right to protect public health and safety where state and federal standards are not adequately protective of their residents. Congress should not be stepping into states to tell local governments that they cannot exercise this right, as they have done with smoking, recycling, dog waste, and other standards. The House Republican bill states boldly that, “A political subdivision of a state shall not impose any requirement relating to the sale, distribution, labeling, application, or use of any pesticide or device,” challenging the right of states and localities to exercise local governance and the democratic process. This language, at this point, is not in the Senate Democrats’ bill.

While the anti-democratic Republican language in the House makes the overall House bill unacceptable, the Senate Democrats’ proposal includes robust support for expanding and strengthening organic product supply chains and domestic production, recognizing its economic, ecological, and public health benefits. House Republican language in support of organic is undermined by a framework that preempts local restrictions of pesticides.

Please seek to eliminate provisions in the House Republican bill that preempt the state and local government’s right to restrict pesticides while supporting the following elements in the Senate and House framework that nurtures the growth of organic agriculture by:

• Addressing organic certification costs;
• Funding organic oversight and enforcement;
• Supporting organic transition;
• Addressing bottlenecks in organic regulatory actions;
• Providing mandatory funding for organic research and data collection;
• Making organic programs work for organic farmers; and
• Establishing an Organic Agriculture Research Coordinator who will coordinate and establish annual strategic priorities.

Let’s make the Farm Bill a bipartisan consensus bill that builds a positive future, by growing organic supply chains and markets with the recognition of their importance to sustainability. Certified organic agriculture has grown over the past four decades from a voluntary standard organized by farmers and grassroots consumers and organizations representing farmers, environmentalists, community leaders, physicians, and rural and urban communities to a $70 billion industry. In the same period, considerable scientific literature continues to underscore the significance of a wholesale transition to organic from chemical-intensive food systems as a way to adequately address the cascading crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and public health.

Please support organic agriculture in the Farm Bill and reject language that undermines, or preempts, local and state authority to enact more stringent land management policies that protect health and the environment.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 17, 2024) Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey (D) proclaimed May 12 -18, 2024 as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness Week, first established in 1998 in numerous states across the U.S. Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)—also called chemical intolerance or Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT), is characterized by disorders in one or more body systems, including respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and neurological processes. It is thought to be caused by adverse reactions to environmental chemicals and/or biological substances such as mold. Affected individuals suffer fatigue, rashes, muscle and joint pains, memory loss, and other symptoms.

The Massachusetts proclamation encourages “residents of the commonwealth to take cognizance” of the event and recognize the distress of their fellow citizens who suffer from MCS. May 12 is also known as International May 12^th Awareness Day, an observance started in 2006 in the United Kingdom to educate the public about many diseases associated with sensitivity to chemicals, including MCS, fibromyalgia, and Gulf War Syndrome.

While some scientists have considered MCS a psychological or psychosomatic problem, there is increasing support for the reality of MCS as a physical disease distinct from mental or emotional disorders. Yet there are no medical tests that can reliably confirm a diagnosis, so health care providers must rely on self-reporting such as the TILT questionnaire. This leaves the medical profession with one option for patients: to try to alleviate the symptoms by avoiding triggering exposures. Often this entails changes in exercise and diet and reduced use of personal care products, cleaning products, and pesticides at home. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends clinical treatment approaches here. The Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured offers numerous resources for coping with the symptoms of MCS and navigating medical and governmental assistance, along with links to many other groups working on MCS issues.

As noted in the Massachusetts proclamation, MCS is recognized by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Social Security Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other federal and state agencies. Yet MCS sufferers often experience a cascade of consequences to their well-being, ranging from unemployment to homelessness. It is difficult to find a place to live or work where chemical exposures do not occur.

Workplaces can be a significant source of trouble; workers typically spend about a fourth of their week inside office buildings. Even in these non-agricultural environments, pesticides and other industrial chemicals may be present, impregnated in building materials and décor such as furniture, carpets, and wood, or used against pests like cockroaches and ants.

Anne Steinemann, PhD, an honorary professor of civil engineering at the University of Melbourne, Australia, has done extensive research on consumer product emissions such as fragrances and indoor air quality. In 2018, Dr. Steinemann published a study finding that 25 percent of Americans develop symptoms in response to common chemicals in paint, petrochemical fumes, and fragrances.

A 2021 study gathered data on workplace exposures in offices in the U.S. the United Kingdom, India and China. The workers wore silicone wristbands, which absorb chemicals in the environment. Out of the 99 chemicals the study targeted, all but five were detected in at least one wristband. For some pesticides, such as malathion and chlorpyrifos, exposures were highest in India and China, but permethrin was most frequent in the U.S. and U.K., probably because permethrin is used to prevent insect infestations and against mosquitoes in urban areas in addition to its agricultural applications. Importantly, several chemicals that have been banned showed up on the wristbands, including chlordane, the DDT breakdown product DDE, PCBs, and PBDE flame retardants (mostly banned in the European Union but not entirely in the U.S.). This demonstrates that these persistent chemicals linger far past their original application dates, potentially exposing generations of people at work and at home.

The wristband study notes that hand-washing reduced exposures significantly, so people with MCS may be able to adjust somewhat to chemical triggers by washing their hands frequently.

Treatment for MCS remains imprecise. In a video on the Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured website, L. Christine Oliver, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical medicine at Harvard Medical School, notes that, “There are no miraculous cures out there.” Further, she says, physicians are not trained to recognize MCS and thus tend to either treat it as an emotional problem or to focus on one or more symptoms by testing for allergies, metabolic and cardiovascular disease, or digestive disorders. But despite the frustrating lack of specific physical disease mechanisms, Oliver stresses, “This is not a psychogenic disease.”

The problem MCS patients confront, she adds, is similar to the controversy over banning smoking in workplaces and public spaces. There was strong resistance to banning smoking, but since smoke-free policies were implemented, we have learned a great deal about the health effects of secondhand smoke. Something very similar is likely to happen with victims of MCS, Dr. Oliver says. As a policy step to cope with MCS, she says the CDC’s internal policy for its own workplaces is “what we should be doing in every workplace in the country.” For example, workers should use no personal fragrances, and offices should warn sensitive individuals ahead of time when remodeling or redecorating is to occur so those individuals can avoid exposures to the related chemicals.

An additional complication is that, like many diseases associated with environmental chemicals, MCS may be caused not by exposure to one chemical or environmental toxicant, but by combinations of exposures, and not by single events, but by numerous events over time. Science, and in particular regulatory toxicology, has focused on single acute events and disregarded long-term, lower-dose events.

Chemical sensitivity has been raised as a medical condition for almost as long as the post-World War II burst of industrial development released a flood of new stressors. In a 2010 status report for Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Canada, Lynn Marshall, MD and co-authors reviewed the history of scientific attention to MCS. The authors observed that more than 80,000 chemicals have been introduced since World War II and that already by the 1950s and 1960s patients began reporting symptoms related to intermittent exposures. In a 1962 book, Human Ecology and Susceptibility to the Chemical Environment, Theron G. Randolph, M.D. tried to make the connection, but the book was reviewed scathingly in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine. Then, about a decade after building construction became more airtight to save energy in the 1970s, “Sick Building Syndrome” emerged as an initiator of chemical sensitivities, according to Dr. Marshall, et al. Many other triggers, including electrical currents and microwave radiation, have since been added to the list of possible suspects.  

But little progress has been made on determining whether, say, small doses of perfume combined with bathroom air fresheners and pesticides in building materials could set in motion the multiplicitous symptoms of MCS and their subsequent catastrophic effects on lives. More evidence is emerging of chemicals’ effects on cellular processes that affect many body systems (see Beyond Pesticides’ May 3 Daily News Blog on Parkinson’s disease). There may well be genetic factors that predispose some people to react negatively to exposures that have no effect on others. The molecular biology and genetic approaches used in neurodegenerative disease research could be a fruitful area of research for MCS.

But two things would really move the science forward for MCS patients: reliable objective diagnostics, including genetic profiling and biomonitoring, and effective, targeted treatments. Currently, the lack of these crucial tools leaves MCS patients open to assertions that MCS is entirely psychological and therefore not society’s problem.

Ultimately, it would probably be easier to reduce the number and toxicity of all industrial chemicals in the environment and peoples’ bodies than to undergo the painstaking and politically manipulable process of studying each chemical separately and each disease individually and then trying to parse the devilishly complex interactions among not only those 80,000 anthropogenic chemicals, but also the 30,000 genes, at least 200,000 proteins, and many other molecules required for human life to function.

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

Sources:
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
A Proclamation
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Awareness Week
https://html.scribdassets.com/7nky11uhkwcfjcde/images/1-5135531184.jpg

Massachusetts Association for the Chemically Injured
https://www.maci-mcs.org/

Hormone receptor activities of complex mixtures of known and suspect chemicals in personal silicone wristband samplers worn in office buildings
Anna S. Young, et al.
Chemosphere
Volume 315, February 2023, 137705
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653522041984?via%3Dihub

Care Now Ontario
https://carenowontario.org/action/
timeline of MCS as a diagnosis in Canada

Clinical Care of Patients with ME/CFS
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/healthcare-providers/clinical-care-patients-mecfs/index.html

Indoor carbon dioxide concentrations, VOCs, environmental sensitivity association with mucous membrane and lower respiratory sick building syndrome symptoms in the base study: analyses of the 100 building dataset
M.G. Apte and C.A. Erdmann
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2002
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3vj5m6wj

(Beyond Pesticides, May 16, 2024) In a recent study at the Institute of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Ulm University in Germany, published in Current Research in Toxicology, scientists exposed embryos of South African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) to three neonicotinoids (NEOs), which led to developmental effects down to a molecular level. These frogs are a well-established model species often used in ecotoxicology studies as bioindicators for overall environmental and ecosystem health. When amphibian species like Xenopus laevis are exposed to contaminants in the water, it leads to negative impacts in the food chain and harms biodiversity. The study concludes that exposure to NEOs directly or through contaminated water leaves entire ecosystems vulnerable.   

The NEOs that the embryos were subjected to include imidacloprid (IMD), thiamethoxam (TMX), and its metabolite clothianidin (CLO). NEOs are a class of insecticides that target the central nervous system of insects and lead to death. These insecticides pose a potential hazard to nontarget organisms, such as animals and humans, since they are persistent in the environment and “are found in natural waters as well as in tap water and human urine in regions where NEOs are widely used,” this study states. The authors continue by saying, “Pesticide residues can enter natural waters through leaching, run-off, or “worst-case” scenarios (e.g., incorrect handling or improper disposal), which brings amphibians into contact with the pesticides.” Previous studies have shown impacts on amphibians to NEOs throughout multiple life stages, but this study focused on early developmental effects to determine impacts on survival.  

To ascertain if NEO exposure was harmful during embryogenesis, the frog embryos were incubated in five milliliters of the three different NEO solutions and analyzed over two weeks for changes in “embryonic morphology and mobility as well as development of cranial cartilage, cranial nerves and cardiac structure and function including the heart rate. In addition, tissue-specific gene expression was investigated to compare possible effects of the three NEOs at the molecular level.” Looking at key organs like the heart and brain, as well as motor skills, helps to assess the fitness (ability to live and reproduce) needed for the survival of the species. 

Fertilized eggs, created from 310 female frogs and 49 male frogs, were incubated in single pesticide solutions for a maximum of 14 days in concentrations of 0.1, 1, 10, 50 to 100 mg/L. “The exposure of embryos to 0.1 and 1 mg/L of each NEO reflects environmentally relevant concentrations, with 10, 50 and 100 mg/L NEO representing ‘worst-case’ scenarios (e.g., incorrect handling or improper disposal),” the authors say. 

Throughout the incubation period, measurements and observations were made using cameras, imaging software, RNA probes, and microscopes before processing all data using a rank sum test through GraphPad Prism 9 software to determine significance. The results that the scientists found, “included a reduced body length, a smaller orbital space, impaired cranial cartilage and nerves, and an altered heart structure and function. At the molecular level, NEO exposure partially resulted in an altered expression of tissue-specific factors, which are involved in eye, cranial placode, and heart development.” 

NEO exposure caused delays in the growth and development of the organisms’ bodies and the organs within. Decreased embryonic mobility was noted, and “all three NEOs altered the heart rate. Imidacloprid (as of 50 mg/L) and TMX (as of 10 mg/L) significantly increased the heart rate, while CLO (100 mg/L) reduced the heart rate.” A significant reduction in eye development was observed for all three NEOs at every concentration, and visible cranial cartilage deformations were also seen for all three insecticides. Nerves in the brain were found to have significant shortening and structural differences, and all three NEOs impacted cardiac parameters as well. “Contact with the NEOs affected the structure of the heart. Some isolated hearts had wider atria and ventricles,” the study states. The most significant structural differences were seen with IMD: “An exposure to IMD resulted in abnormal hearts in 78.00% (50 mg/L) and 86.36% (100 mg/L) of the embryos examined.” 

Several negative effects, such as external appearance, swimming mobility, and neural/cardiac embryonic development, were seen with exposure to each of the three NEOs studied. Some effects occurred upon exposure to as little as 0.1 mg/L of these insecticides. Overall, the most concerning of the three types is IMD. The scientists found “that IMD has the strongest effect on X. laevis embryogenesis, because an exposure to IMD leads to negative effects in all organs and tissues studied (eyes, cranial cartilage, cranial nerves, and heart). Most importantly, IMD leads to a drastic reduction in mobility up to complete immobility, which is a major problem in nature in terms of foraging and escape from predators.” 

NEOs became one of the leading insecticide classes in the early 2000s by offering targeted pest control. More recently, however, there have been concerns for their safety and the impacts on nontarget organisms. After numerous studies, these three NEOs were banned in the European Union based on the environmental risks, especially with bees. With NEOs “occur[ing] in high concentrations in some areas of the world in natural waters… [they bring] a variety of non-target organisms into contact with NEOs… Amphibians are especially threatened by biodiversity loss, with various causes such as habitat loss, climate change, infectious diseases, or contaminants being responsible for the amphibian extinction,” say the authors of this study. 

Contamination in ecosystems from pesticides is an ongoing concern. Not only are there effects on soil and water but biodiversity loss has reached unprecedented levels. There is a long history of the effects on human health, essential pollinators (even at extremely low doses), and aquatic organisms from NEOs, which harm biodiversity and jeopardize ecosystem health. Current environmental laws do not adequately protect biodiversity, which furthers the urgency to advance organic practices and preserve biodiversity.  

Learn about Managing Pests Safely Without Neonicotinoids and visit Tools for Change to learn how to organize your community against pesticide use. Sign up to get Beyond Pesticides’ Action of the Week and Weekly News Updates delivered right to your inbox, and stay informed on the health and environmental hazards of pesticides, pesticide regulation and policy, pesticide alternatives, and cutting-edge science with the Daily News.  

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

Source: 

Flach, H. et al. (2024) Comparing the effects of three neonicotinoids on embryogenesis of the South African clawed frog xenopus laevis, Current Research in Toxicology. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666027X24000227?via%3Dihub. 

(Beyond Pesticides, May 15, 2024) A study published recently in the journal Environmental Research finds a significant correlation between exposure to certain pesticides and an elevated risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a chronic autoimmune condition of the gastrointestinal tract. The study, adding to the body of science on this subject, evaluates self-reported data from licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses exposed to pesticides for over 20 years. In addition, while some of the chemicals found to be most closely associated with incidents of IBD have been banned from use, they are “forever” chemicals that persist in the environment for generations. These findings demonstrate once again the failings of the current regulatory process to identify hazards before they are put into the environment.

The study found evidence that exposure to several organochlorine insecticides (dieldrin, DDT, and toxaphene), as well as organophosphate insecticides (parathion, terbufos, and phorate) and herbicides (2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TP, and metolachlor), is associated with elevated IBD risk. IBD is a generic term for diseases that result in chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, such as Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. It is estimated that 6.8 million patients globally suffered from IBD in 2017.

IBD may result from an imbalance in gut microbiota, known as dysbiosis, which can increase the gut’s susceptibility to infection and trigger an autoimmune response. The Environmental Research study cites increasing evidence linking specific pesticides, including chlorpyrifos, glyphosate, organochlorines, organophosphates, carbamates, and other classes of pesticides to dysbiosis and related gastrointestinal issues.

Of particular concern is that at least two of the chemicals most closely associated with IBD, dieldrin, and DDT, are part of the “dirty dozen” forever chemicals identified by the United Nations as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). POPs are the subject of a 2001 international treaty, The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs, chemical substances that persist in the environment, bioaccumulate through the food web and particularly in fatty tissues, and pose risks to human health and the environment. Pesticides represent a significant portion of compounds designated as POPs. (See previous Beyond Pesticides reporting).

In addition to general exposure information for all pesticides, additional information was collected for each of the 50 specific pesticides, including duration and frequency of use. This data was used to determine an intensity score that accounted for the duration and frequency of lifetime pesticide use, as well as variations in exposure due to workplace practices (e.g., use of personal protective equipment). The intensity score was multiplied by the lifetime days of use to generate the cumulative intensity-weighted lifetime days (IWLD). This methodology enabled researchers to compare the impacts of repeated exposure to pesticides or combinations of pesticides. While the data for the IWLD analysis was limited, the researchers observed positive correlations between IBD and IWLD.

For the study, data was compiled from a series of questionnaires completed by over 52,000 licensed private pesticide applicators (principally farmers) and over 32,000 spouses of applicators in North Carolina and Iowa between 1999-2003 and 2019-2021. The questionnaire collected information about the duration and frequency of use of any agricultural pesticides, with follow-up questions about 50 specific chemicals.

Cases of IBD are identified for participants who either were diagnosed by a doctor or who self-reported the condition following the date of enrollment in the study. Personal information for each respondent was also collected, including sex, age, and educational level. Participants were primarily white and 20% had a college degree. Those who were found to be more likely to suffer from IBD are older, female, ever-smokers, and received more than a high school education.

Blind Spot of EPA Regulations: Pesticides Synergist Effects

One aspect of pesticide exposure the study did not evaluate is the correlation of IBD and exposure to specific combinations of pesticides, a glaring and continuing blind spot that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) risk analyses do not address: synergistic effects of pesticides.

As Beyond Pesticides reported in April this year, a 2024 Chemosphere study identified synergistic effects in specific chemical combinations, challenging the traditional assumption that such interactions are merely additive. The study indicates that environmental mixtures of chemicals could lead to more dangerous compounds. Researchers “used the exposure data from a complex operating site with legacy pesticide pollution to evaluate if …the component-based risk assessment approaches that rely on additivity can predict the actual risk of pesticides in a mixture, and the legacy organochlorine pesticides banned many years ago interact with registered and supposedly safe herbicides in a mixture.” Specifically, it was found that most binary mixtures of organochlorine pesticides exhibit synergistic effects at higher concentrations, except for the combination of lindane and dieldrin, which remained additive at all concentrations.

These findings, along with similar research stretching back decades, underscore the critical and continued weakness in EPA pesticide regulation of pesticide chemical mixtures which renders the agency ineffective at developing pesticide safety regulations. Beyond Pesticides has long argued that the most effective answer to this regulatory failure is to abandon use (and the subsidizing of conventional agriculture’s use of) synthetic pesticides and fertilizers in favor of effective and viable organic and organic regenerative agricultural methods that do not require or allow use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers.

While the participants in the study were all male caucasian licensed pesticide applicators, the exposure pattern suggests that farmworkers face similar, if not worse, exposure patterns.  In February, Beyond Pesticides highlighted the latest in a series of reports on the state of farmworker protection published by Vermont Law School’s Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS), which found that farmworkers “face a level of occupational risk unrivaled by most workers.” Farmworkers and their families suffer a disproportionate burden of the hazards. For more information, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on Disproportionate Risk and Agricultural Justice.

Farmworkers’ toxic chemical exposure does not fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) like almost every other worker in the U.S. Instead, it is directed by the Worker Protection Standards (WPS) administered by EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The CAFS report outlined how state and federal enforcement of pesticide safety regulations are weak and unreliable… [and] the cooperative agreement[s] between federal and state agencies makes it nearly impossible to ensure implementation of the WPS.” The report goes on to note “Encouraging growers to transition to organic agriculture is a worthwhile strategy for mitigating the harm from the most toxic pesticides.”

The results of the Environmental Research study confirm a 2020 review of scientific literature by researchers at the University of Illinois on the toxic effect of environmental contaminants including pesticides published in the journal Toxicological Science in 2020 (previous reporting here). This review found that environmental contaminants are associated with changes in the gut microbiome and other adverse health implications.

Gut microbiota play a crucial role in lifelong digestion, immune, and central nervous system regulation. Through the gut biome, pesticide exposure can enhance or exacerbate the adverse effects of additional environmental toxicants on the body. With prolonged exposure to various environmental contaminants, critical chemical-induced changes may occur in the gut microbes, influencing adverse health outcomes. Karen Chiu, PhD, a graduate research fellow at the University of Illinois, states, “All of these data together suggest that exposure to many of these environmental chemicals, during various stages of life, can alter the gut microbiome in ways that influence health.” 

Over 300 environmental contaminants and their byproducts, including pesticides, bisphenols, phthalates, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and heavy metals, are all chemicals commonly present in human blood and urine samples. These toxicants can alter hormone metabolism, which adversely affects health outcomes. Adverse health effects of environmental contaminants include reproductive and developmental defects, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, obesity, thyroid disorders, and improper immune operation. Although studies show how chemical exposures affect human health, more research questions how these chemicals influence gut microbiota.

There is extensive research surrounding gut dysbiosis associated with exposure to heavy metals like mercury, cadmium, lead, and arsenic in aquatic organisms, rodents, birds, and larger mammals. Dioxins also increase the formation of antibiotic-resistant genes and disrupt the gut microbiome, as well as lipid and glucose metabolism. According to multiple studies, exposure to the weed killer glyphosate (patented as an antibiotic) changes the bacterial composition of the gut microbiome in cattle, rodents, and honey bees. Chlorpyrifos pesticides alter gut microbe populations in developing and adult male rodents and fish. New findings suggest exposure to the pesticide atrazine, diazinon, glyphosate-based herbicides, and trichlorfon cause sex-specific shifts in gut microbiota.

Dr. Chui concludes, “The pathologies associated with altered microbiomes after exposure to environmental chemicals include immune dysfunction, altered carbohydrate and lipid metabolism, and neurological and behavioral impairments. We are also seeing that these effects highly depend on an individual’s sex and age.”

To improve and sustain gut microbiome health, the use of toxic pesticides must stop. Instead, adopting regenerative-organic systems and eliminating petrochemical, synthetic pesticides and fertilizers will mitigate harmful exposure to pesticides, restore soil health, protect water quality and environmental biodiversity, while reducing carbon emissions. Public policy must advance this shift, rather than continue to allow unnecessary reliance on synthetic pesticides. Learn more about soil microbiota and its importance here in Beyond Pesticides’ journal Pesticides and You. Additionally, learn more about the effects of pesticides on human health by visiting Beyond Pesticides’ Pesticide-Induced Diseases Database. This database supports the clear need for strategic action to shift away from pesticide dependency. 

Together, these studies highlight the importance of evaluating how environmental contaminants like pesticides impact body regulation by gut microbiota and have significant implications for considerations that should be, but are not currently, a part of pesticide review and registration by EPA.

The ongoing expansion and embrace of organic farming and land management indicates a positive shift away from reliance on harmful chemicals and petrochemical-based pesticides. To help support the move away from these toxic petrochemical pesticides, see  Tools for Change to find resources and methods for mobilizing your community against the use of toxic pesticides. See Eating With A Conscience to understand the risks of pesticide exposure through commonly eaten fruits and vegetables, while considering the health benefits of eating organic (plus how to eat organic on a budget). For current research on the negative health effects of herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, check out the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management and the Pesticide-Induced Disease Database.

For more about disproportionate harm to farmworkers from pesticide use in conventional agriculture and why organic certification should recognize Agricultural Justice issues, see Beyond Pesticides’ Keeping Organic Strong and Agricultural Justice webpages.

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

Sources:

Pesticide use and inflammatory bowel disease in licensed pesticide applicators and spouses in the Agricultural Health Study, Environmental Research, May 15, 2024

The Impact of Environmental Chemicals on the Gut Microbiome, Toxicological Sciences, August 2020

Herbicides and pesticides synergistically interact at low concentrations in complex mixtures, Chemosphere, April 2024

Pesticide Production Leaves a Legacy of Poisoning and Contamination – Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog, June 30, 2014

(Beyond Pesticides, May 14, 2024) As research continues to emerge on the value of organic farming, U.S. Congress debates its future as Farm Bill negotiations have been stalled for months. Recent studies published within the past few months show the significance of organic agriculture’s support of fungal and microbial life, which is essential to soil health. Meanwhile, last week the Democrat-led Senate and Republican-led House of Representatives presented their respective visions to amend the 2024 Farm Bill. The office of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, released an initial Senate framework for the (now 2024) Farm Bill. At the same time, U.S. Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, released an outline of the House version, then followed up with more details.

While the Senate Democratic proposal includes more robust support for expanding and strengthening organic product supply chains and domestic production, the House Republican support for organic land management principles and practices demonstrates that the Farm Bill could recognize, across the political spectrum, its economic, ecological, and public health benefits in the United States. Despite this, a growing coalition of advocates is alerting the public and members of Congress that the chemical industry and allied companies are pushing to simultaneously preempt state authority to allow stricter bans of toxic pesticides at the municipal level and shield the producers and users of toxic pesticides from liability lawsuits associated with the harm that their products cause.

Farm Bill Breakdown

The National Organic Coalition [Beyond Pesticides is a member organization] summarizes the funding and policy proposals from the Senate Farm Bill framework relating to the National Organic Program as follows.

“Addressing Organic Certification Costs:

• Increases reimbursements to organic operations to $1,000 to help defray annual certification costs.
• Provides mandatory and stable funding for the Organic Certification Cost Share Program to ensure that it does not run out of funds as the organic sector grows.

Funding Organic Oversight and Enforcement Activities:

• Provides authority to fund the National Organic Program, the agency that oversees and enforces organic regulations, at a level that keeps pace with growth in the organic marketplace.
• Provides $5 million in mandatory funding for database and technology upgrades related to organic import certificates and other fraud and enforcement data tracking required by the newly implemented Strengthening Organic Enforcement regulation.

Supporting Organic Transition:

• Authorizes an Organic Market Development Grants Program.
• Moves toward codifying ongoing support for organic transition.

Addressing Regulatory Bottlenecks with Organic Regulations:

• Directs the National Organic Program to solicit public input on the prioritization of organic regulations to be promulgated or revised.
• Directs the Agriculture Secretary to publish an annual report regarding recommendations received from the National Organic Standards Board, all regulatory and administrative actions taken, and justifications on why actions were or were not taken on those recommendations.
• Directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on the efforts of the National Organic Program to improve organic standards and provide recommendations on how the National Organic Program can ensure that organic program standards evolve in a timely manner to meet consumer expectations and benefit organic producers.

Providing Mandatory Funding for Organic Research and Data Collection

• Continues existing mandatory funding at the $50 million level for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative.
• Requires greater coordination of organic research activities within USDA.
• Provides $5 million in mandatory funding for organic production and market data initiatives.

Making USDA Programs Work For Organic Farmers

• Increases the payment cap and establishes equity for organic producers who apply for Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) conservation funding through the EQIP Organic Initiative.
• Directs the USDA to improve collection of organic dairy market data, which is critical to farm viability for organic dairy producers.”

One other noteworthy addition in the Senate Framework is the proposal to establish an Organic Agriculture Research Coordinator who will “coordinate and establish annual strategic priorities on organic agriculture research at USDA, to conduct and publish a survey of USDA research relating to organic agriculture, and to make recommendations to enhance USDA research and coordination on organic agriculture.” This is essential in fostering further academic exploration of organic agriculture and land management principles in the coming years and decades given the lackluster number of research applications and institutional support in the past.

The House outline, while it does not include as many provisions for the expansion of organic policy as the Senate outline, agrees with several of its key components. For example, the House outline includes mandatory funding provisions for “database maintenance and technology upgrades,” as well as mandatory funding for “the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative at $50 million per year.” The House outline also calls for an additional “$10 million in mandatory funding for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative based on a request for increased funding in H.R. 2720” on top of $5 million in “mandatory funding for the continued database maintenance and technology upgrades,” while the Senate outline calls for just $5 million in funding for the latter. Beyond Pesticides welcomes bipartisan consensus that organic supply chains and markets must continue to be nurtured as recognition of its importance to sustainability, rather than put on the legislative chopping block.

If adopted, these legislative priorities will elevate the already successful organic market to greater heights in terms of improving domestic production capacity and instilling public confidence in the regulatory system and accompanying standards. The U.S. still has the opportunity to lead the adoption of organic agriculture principles on the international stage. For example, the Biden Administration launched the Organic Transition Initiative last year, opening $300 million in funding to support aspiring and current organic farmers, yet falling short of setting a target of total percentage of farmland by a certain date. The European Union has audacious goals for organic agriculture, including its target of 30% of its total farmland as organic by 2030; currently, European Union boasts roughly 15% of its total farmland under organic standards which compared to the United States (less than 1% of total farmland certified organic) is far ahead of the curve. To learn more, see the Daily News section on Alternatives/Organics.

Certified organic agriculture has proliferated over the past four decades from a voluntary standard organized by farmers and grassroots consumers and organizations representing farmers, environmentalists, community leaders, physicians, and rural and urban communities to a $70 billion industry. In the same period, considerable scientific literature continues to underscore the significance of a wholesale transition to organic from chemical-intensive food systems to adequately address the cascading crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and public health. Despite this, there is also continued efforts by the chemical industry and those companies that use its products to undermine environmental and public health within the Farm Bill and state legislatures.

Local Authority and Pesticide Immunity Bill Riders

Federal preemption of state and local authority to establish pesticide bans and stricter pesticide regulations is also on the menu for Farm Bill language across the board. As reported in Daily News previously, Agricultural Labeling Uniformity Act (ALUA) and Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act) could be included in the 2024 Farm Bill as riders that inevitably undermine local and state authority to enact more stringent agricultural and land management policies that would support public health, biodiversity, and climate action. The EATS Act’s stated purpose is to “prevent States and local jurisdictions from interfering with the production and distribution of agricultural products. . .,” effectively preempting local and state health and environmental concerns regarding agricultural land use. Meanwhile, ALUA threatens to undermine local and state authority to protect the health of their residents from toxic pesticide use on public land—effectively overturning decades of Supreme Court precedent. See previous Actions of the Week (here, here, and here) to contact your U.S. Senator or Representative to vote against these bills and/or vote against this language from inclusion in the finalized text.

While industry is attempting to undermine environmental and public health protections at the national level, there is an equally concerning, industry-led campaign to undermine victims of pesticide exposure from seeking legal restitution through failure-to-warn claims under state toxic tort law. This, too, could pop up in the Farm Bill as a vehicle to stop litigation against chemical companies by those harmed. Dubbed by advocates as “pesticide immunity” bills, state legislatures in Missouri, Iowa, and Idaho have attempted to change state civil tort law to enshrine in state legal codes that:

“any pesticide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a pesticide label approved by the [EPA], or a pesticide label consistent with the most recent human health assessment performed under FIFRA, or consistent with the [EPA] carcinogenicity classification of the pesticide under FIFRA, shall be sufficient to satisfy any requirement for a warning label regarding health or safety or any other provision of current law.”

This argument that “the label is the law” is in direct contradiction of FIFRA’s mandate that obligates pesticide manufacturers to disclose all relevant information regarding the proper use of pesticides for applicators, who include farmworkers and farmers. This effort is a direct response to thousands of cases involving Roundup/glyphosate that have resulted in large jury awards and settlements against Bayer/Monsanto in the billions of dollars. While sponsors of these bills claim that the labels on pesticide products provide sufficient warning of hazards, users have been misled by advertising that falsely touts product safety. As Beyond Pesticides previously reported, Bayer’s efforts have been rejected twice in the last few years by the U.S. Supreme Court, letting stand two lower court rulings against the company. The company’s most recent loss, on February 5, 2024, came from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in favor of the plaintiff in Carson v. Monsanto on Bayer’s claim that FIFRA preempts a failure to warn claim.  See previous Actions of the Week (here and here) to contact local elected officials in Iowa, Missouri, and Idaho to raise the importance of protecting failure-to-warn claims in state civil torts.

Organic Agriculture Cultivates Beneficial Fungi

Researchers find that organic farming systems have three times the proportion of beneficial fungi relative to chemical-intensive farms that rely on toxic pesticides. 

An interdisciplinary team of Brazil-based researchers at Sao Paolo State University’s Laboratory of Microbial Bioinformatics and Department of Soil Sciences at the University of Sao Paolo conducted this research published in World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology on March 2, 2024. “Altogether, our results uncover that beyond differences in microbial community composition between the two farming systems, fungal keystone nodes are far more relevant in the organic farming system, thus suggesting that bacteria-fungi interactions are more frequent in organic farming systems, promoting a more functional microbial community,” the researchers share in the study abstract. There is a symbiotic relationship between fungi and microbial bacteria in soil, the latter of which will be expounded upon in the next study.

The study drew upon data from conventional no-till and organic farming systems on the Mokiti Okada corn field in a Brazilian tropical savanna biome. Ammonium sulfate fertilizer was sprayed on the conventional site, with the addition of singular applications of atrazine and benzoyl cyclohexanedione herbicides as well as two applications of Bayer insecticide Connect® with the active ingredients imidacloprid and cyfluthrin. The organic site, meanwhile, employed no synthetic fertilizers and just one application of the NOP-approved insecticide Spinosad. Nine soil samples were collected from each site within the 2018-2019 growing season. For the methodological breakdown of how researchers ascertained pH levels, soil enzyme activities, nitrogen forms, permanganate oxidizable carbon, soil fertility, aluminum, and macronutrients, see the subsection “Soil fertility and enzyme activity analyses” on page 2 of 13.

Using this data, researchers determined the number of “nodes” within “co-occurrence networks” between fungi and soil bacteria. “An important feature of microbial co-occurrence networks are the keystone nodes, which account for highly associated taxa that individually or in a guild, exert considerable effects on the microbiome structure and functioning [],” the researchers say in explaining the significance of nodes within this methodological framework. “Our results showed that, despite being sparser, the [organic farming] co-occurrence network had higher abundance and proportion of fungal keystone taxa than the [conventional farming] co-occurrence network.” This is consistent with numerous studies documenting the repercussion of toxic pesticide dependency in conventional agriculture leading to fungal resistance from dependency on pesticides, including fungicides. Beyond Pesticides documents the growing prevalence of fungal resistance to pesticides and its implications for ecological and public health. See a 2019 Pesticides and You essay by Terry Shistar, PhD, “Fungi- Underappreciated as Friends, Overrated as Foes,” to learn more.

Organic Agriculture Boosts Soil Health and Microbial Activity

Farmers that adhere to organic principles for cultivating their land, meanwhile, are found to support the microbial density and richness of soil relative to conventional agriculture practices dependent on synthetic inputs.

An interdisciplinary team of Chile-based researchers at Millenium Institute Center for Genome Regulation, Institutio de Ciencias Biologicas, Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability, Laboratory of Soil Microbial Ecology and Biogeochemistry, among other institutions, conducted this research published in Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment online May 4, 2024 for an official release date of August 14, 2024 in the full journal. “Organic [fertilization] promote[s] the abundance of bacteria involved in [carbon] and [nitrogen] cycling,” researchers found corroborating a recent metanalysis finding sustainable agriculture practices such as organic fertilizers “increases soil microbial biomass.” The researchers continue, “the contrast between conventional and organic agricultural systems was included in the pest management (PM) [category] since the no application of synthetic pesticides is the basis of organic agriculture.”

The goal of this study is to incorporate soil ecology analysis in agricultural management to determine “whether [sustainable agriculture practices] Sust-APs, in general, shape soil microbial communities and concomitantly soil functions.” The researchers conducted a literature review to gather requisite data on soil health, management practices, and fungi-bacteria relationships. They utilize a “publication bias assessment” to test the robustness and degree of significance for the final 232 selected articles. Within these studies, there are contrasts found between certain agricultural practices (e.g. tillage, pesticide management, fertilization, and soil organic carbon management.) Noteworthy contrasts include distinction between synthetic pesticide use and organic fertilization in the pest management section, as well as the distinction between organic and conventional management within the pest management category (as referenced above). “We considered 59 datasets: 39 for bacteria (Appendix D) and 20 for fungi (Appendix E) originating from 46 research articles,” the researchers delve into the methodological approach of different research sets for this study. “In turn, these 59 datasets involved the [standardization] and reanalysis of 924 microbial community data at the Family taxonomic level of bacteria and fungi (647 and 277 for bacteria and fungi, respectively).”

In summary, sustainable pest management (Sust-PM) practices (i.e., organic land care principles and practices) “increased bacterial richness, entropy, and it was the only practice that increased bacterial evenness.” This is consistent with numerous studies on the detrimental impacts of conventional synthetic pesticide use on soil biota. The adoption and adherence to organic principles improve soil health, water health, and human health, as documented in various sections of the Daily News. For example, a 2021 study published in Agrosystems, Geosciences, and Environment found that the U.S. corn belt has lost approximately 35% of its topsoil since the turn of the 21^st century due to reliance on monoculture farm systems and conventional pesticides.

Keeping Organic Strong

”To reflect the science and seriously take on the challenges of the public health crisis, biodiversity collapse, and the climate emergency, the Farm Bill must make a very large investment in organic land management and end our country’s dependency on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers,” said Jay Feldman.  

Beyond Pesticides co-founder and executive director, Mr. Feldman served on the National Organic Standards Board during the 2010-2015 cycle, witnessing the importance of public engagement in protecting and building on the growth of the organic sector. As the Farm Bill negotiations continue, with the chance that they could continue for many months, advocates will continue to drive transformative policy change with equally transformative solutions grounded in peer-reviewed, independent science. See Keeping Organic Strong to learn more about the importance of maintaining and building upon the foundation of National Organic Program. Consider subscribing to our Action of the Week or Weekly News Update to learn more about how to engage in advocacy and receive a recap of the week’s top reports and developments.

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

Sources:

Matteoli, F.P. et al. (2024) ‘Organic farming promotes the abundance of fungi keystone taxa in bacteria-fungi interkingdom networks’, World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 40(4). doi:10.1007/s11274-024-03926-y.

Mondaca, P. et al. (2024) ‘Effects of sustainable agricultural practices on soil microbial diversity, composition, and functions’, Agriculture, Ecosystems &amp; Environment, 370, p. 109053. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2024.109053.

See U.S. Senate Farm Bill Framework and House Farm Bill Framework

(Beyond Pesticides, May 13, 2024) A study published in Environmental Research finds that “early life organophosphate pesticide exposure has been linked with poorer neurodevelopment from infancy to adolescence.” Researchers in this study acknowledge that there is still much more to be done in furthering understanding of “neural mechanisms underlying these associations,” and yet there is “notable consistency” in their Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) birth cohort study. This study’s findings are consistent with decades of substantial, peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting the adverse health impacts of organophosphate pesticides on public and ecological health. Organic advocates believe that a transition away from chemical-intensive agriculture and land management is the most viable solution to avoid adverse health impacts and end reliance on toxic chemicals in households and communities.

The researchers for this study are based at the University of California, Berkley (Center for Environmental Research and Community Health as well as Center for Interdisciplinary Brain Sciences Research), Department of Public Health at University of California, Merced, and Stanford University (Departments of Radiology and Pediatrics in the School of Medicine). “We have reported associations of prenatal [organophosphate] exposure with poorer cognitive function and executive function, and more attention and behavior problems from birth through age 18 years,” according to the researchers.

The researchers arrived at this conclusion through a multi-pronged approach, including a pesticide exposure assessment, infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), covariate assessment, and subsequent statistical analysis of the data.

Over the course of this 18-year study time horizon, 317 youth from the original cohort of pregnant women recruited in 1999 and 2000 made up the study population with a note “that the youth in this analysis are separate from the subset of 95 youth who completed fNIRS at age 16 years.” In the end, 291 CHAMCOS youth and their respective families were included in this analysis.  Most mothers were born in Mexico (90.4 percent) and were living “at or below the poverty line at the 18-year visit (41.6%).” Pesticide exposure was measured two times during the pregnancy (13- and 26-week gestation) and at 6-month, 1-year-, 2-year, 3.5-year, and 5-year appointments.

The researchers measured the concentration of 6 dialkyl phosphate metabolites – three dimethyl phosphate metabolites (dimethylphosphate, dimethylthiophosphate, dimethyldithiophosphate) and three diethyl phosphate metabolites (diethylphosphate, diethylthiophosphate, and diethyldithiophosphate)—using gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. From there, the researchers estimated neurodevelopment changes through fNIRS to measure “cortical activation in the frontal, temporal, and parietal regions of the brain during tasks of executive function and semantic language.” Data was gathered from the mother-youth pair participants “at approximately biennial visits (twice during pregnancy, shortly following delivery, and when youth were 6 months and 1, 2, 3.5, 5, 7, 9, 10.5, 12, 14, 16, and 18 years of age).”

Various organophosphates, most notoriously the insecticide chlorpyrifos, are linked to adverse health effects in vulnerable individuals, including children, mothers, farmworkers, and frontline workers in the agricultural and pest management sectors. Although advocates for public and environmental health initially prevailed when in 2021 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ordered EPA to promulgate a rule eliminating chlorpyrifos use in agriculture after its ban on golf courses in 2001, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of industry by vacating this prohibition.

In terms of the scientific literature, there are numerous studies that document the public health hazards caused by organophosphate pesticides. For example, a 2023 meta-analysis of organophosphates published in Toxics found that current pesticides that fall in this class of chemicals, including chlorpyrifos and malathion, induce oxidative stress, as well as DNA and cellular damage in the cardiovascular system. In addition, organophosphates can disrupt the homeostasis of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory responses of cytokine proteins responsible for immune protection. Thus, exposure can exacerbate vulnerability to deadly diseases, including cardiovascular disease. A 2024 study published in Environmental Sciences Europe builds on this linkage, finding that some organophosphate pesticides—including metabolites of organophosphates (oxypyrimidine [diazinon], paranitrophenol [parathion], and dichloroynl-dimeth prop carboacid [dichlorvos]) can increase cancer risk while simultaneously elevating inflammation biomarkers that indicate damage to organs (e.g., liver) via oxidative stress. Different cancers are associated with different pesticides; consequently, cancer risk changes with exposure concentration and pattern.

Organophosphates also pose a threat to reproductive health based on studies published in Environmental Health Perspectives, F1000 Research, and additional peer-reviewed journals. For example, men exposed to organophosphate (e.g., glyphosate and malathion) insecticides have lower sperm concentrations than the general population, with an even greater degree found in men exposed through professional settings such as factories. To learn more about the adverse, long-term health impacts onset by organophosphate pesticides, see its section in the Daily News Blog and search details on specific organophosphates in the Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management.

Dependency on individual toxic pesticides and families of pesticides are symptomatic of chemical-intensive land management practices. According to Beyond Pesticides, campaigns to ban individual pesticides can be important in elevating public understanding of the scope of the problem, but insufficient in galvanizing transformational change of food systems resulting in public, worker, and environmental exposure. Toxic pesticides do not have a place in certified organic products, nor should they have a place in any food products consumed by the public. Organic advocates have long decried the use of toxic pesticides in mainstream, industrial agriculture and land management and call for systems-change transformation that is achievable through organic agriculture and land management principles. This sentiment is aligned with Beyond Pesticides’ mission to eliminate use of toxic petrochemical pesticides by 2032 to address the compounding crises of public health, biodiversity collapse, and climate change.

See Organic Agriculture, including sections on Why Organic? and Keeping Organic Strong, to view an array of resources, guides, and research on the ecological, public health, and environmental justice implications of a wholesale organic food system. See Eating With a Conscience to learn about which organophosphates, neonicotinoids, and other class of chemicals are most commonly sprayed on everyday produce and vegetables to inform your next trip to the grocery store. And finally, see Tools for Change to learn about organizing strategies to transition your community toward organic lawncare management programs.

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

Source: Environmental Research

(Beyond Pesticides, May 10, 2024) A study published by scientists in France from La Rochelle University’s Chizé Center for Biological Studies, in collaboration with the University of Strasbourg and the University of Burgundy, finds lower pesticide load in chicks from a bird of prey species in areas with organic farming. A correlation between lower numbers of pesticides in the blood of birds with the presence of organic farms surrounding the habitats was determined after analyzing 55 Montagu’s harrier (Circus pygargus) nestlings from 22 different nests in southwestern France. As the percentage of organic agriculture around the nests increased, there was a significant decrease in the quantity and types of pesticides detected within the chicks’ blood. 

In beginning this study, the scientists hypothesized that “the application of organic farming practices is expected to reduce contamination levels in the environment and consequently in wildlife.” They also referenced studies, such as a soil study, that aided in this speculation: “In an analysis of topsoil samples collected across Europe, samples from organic farms showed significantly fewer pesticide residues and in lower concentrations than those from conventional farms … [with] 70 to 90% lower concentrations.”  

This study screened for 104 total compounds, 28 of which were detected in the blood of the Montagu’s harrier chicks. The chicks were evaluated during May-August of 2021 and their blood results contained 10 herbicides, 12 fungicides, 5 insecticides, and 1 synergist. The scientists then “used the number of pesticides detected and the total sum of concentrations of pesticides in chick blood as proxies of contamination levels.” As a result, “all chicks sampled (n = 55) were found to be contaminated with at least one pesticide, and the maximum number of pesticides detected per chick was 16.”   

Some of the detected pesticides include bifenthrin, boscalid, clothianidin, cypermethrin, cyprodinil, difenoconazole, dimethomorph, epoxiconazole, indoxacarb, mecoprop, myclobutanil, oxadiazon, piperonyl butoxide, propyzamide, quinoxyfen, and thiacloprid. Each of these pesticides are linked to health effects in humans that range from skin irritation to cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, kidney and liver damage, and birth, development, and reproductive impacts. Many of these pesticides are toxic to aquatic organisms, bees, and birds and have been banned in France. Their persistence in the environment is highlighted by their presence in the blood of the Montagu’s harrier chicks.                 

Birds experience pesticide contamination in their blood through their environment, their food, and from maternal transfer–when pesticide compounds in the mother’s blood transfer to the fetus. As the scientists say, the Montagu’s harrier “eggs and chicks are directly exposed to local pesticide contamination throughout their growth period, through direct spraying on eggs, contact with contaminants remaining on the soil and on the crop, and through feeding on contaminated prey.” A key factor for this is the nest location in conjunction with the dietary exposure. The location not only affects direct contact with pesticides but determines the exposure levels within the available food sources in the surrounding environment. 

The Montagu’s harrier species is a rare and declining bird of prey, similar to hawks and eagles, that summers in Europe/Asia and winters in Africa, choosing primarily to build nests in farmland. Their prey is comprised mostly of voles, small birds, shrews, rabbits, lizards, and insects that are found near their nesting sites, which they make on the ground. Studying birds of prey is a great indicator of the health of entire ecosystems, as impacts on the food chain from pesticide exposure can create an unwanted ripple effect. “Anthropogenic pollution associated with industrialisation, urbanization, and agricultural intensification has led to the contamination of multiple environmental compartments (i.e., biotic and abiotic elements), notably wildlife,” this study highlights. As more and more pesticides are developed to combat resistance and replace other pesticides that have been banned, a greater need arises for other alternatives that do not repeat the vicious cycle. 

Female Montagu’s harriers bring small prey organisms like insects to the nestlings, while males will bring larger prey like voles from farther away from the nest. Their foraging area is according to prey availability, so this study “tested the effects of the proportion of organic farming at the scale of male’s home range” to assess the representative areas. This analysis shows a higher percentage of organic farming “significantly reduced the number of pesticides detected in chick’s blood” and that “a higher proportion of organic farming around nests significantly decreased the number of pesticides in Montagu’s harrier chicks both at the scale of the crop plot… and at a larger scale.”  

Having a higher proportion of organic farming around nests not only decreased the total number of different pesticides in the nestlings, but it also reduced the different types of pesticides detected. In chicks that were primarily surrounded by organic farms, they generally had only herbicides detected in their blood. Nests that had fewer organic farms nearby often showed multiple pesticides from the herbicide, fungicide, and insecticide classes. This shows that “the lower number of compounds found in chicks from nests surrounded by higher proportions of organic farming at the field and larger scales, suggests that not only the direct environment of nests (soil and vegetation) is less contaminated but also that the prey hunted by parents in the close vicinity and brought to chicks is less contaminated.” 

In France, organic farming complies with the standards of legislation that bans synthetic pesticides and fertilizers to grow crops. “The present study reveals that organic farming reduces the number of pesticides in Montagu’s harrier chicks, which may have a beneficial effect on its population, as chemical inputs have been shown to drive farmland bird population decline across Europe,” the study authors postulate. Elimination of this species’ exposure to pesticide cocktails means elimination of exposure to all organisms within the food chain. As the scientists mention, “because the Montagu’s harrier is at the top of the trophic chain and a specialist predator species of agricultural lands, studying its contamination with pesticides is particularly relevant as an indicator of larger contamination of the environment.” Creating a more sustainable environment by addressing the issue of pesticide exposure allows for a cascade of positive effects on soil, water, air, and biodiversity. 

Going organic or supporting organic are ways to promote change. Beyond Pesticides’ mission is to eliminate petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers by 2032 and the Beyond Pesticides website offers many resources to assist in this transition. View Protecting Biodiversity with Organic Practices to learn how organic agriculture protects species richness. Keeping Organics Strong provides updates on organic regulations and opportunities to take action. Subscribe to the Daily News for articles on the effects of pesticides and benefits of organic practices. 

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

 Source: 

Fuentes, E. et al. (2024) Organic farming reduces pesticide load in a bird of prey, Science of The Total Environment. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969724029255. 

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8-9, 2024) In its proposal on mushrooms and pet food, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Organic Program is following up on recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to ensure that two areas of organic production are clarified and in compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The notice raises questions of standards that ultimately grow the organic market while ensuring that the USDA organic label is backed by standards that have integrity and garner the public’s trust. In this spirit, Beyond Pesticides participates in the NOSB review/recommendation process and USDA rulemaking through public comments. [Note: Beyond Pesticides has served on the NOSB for a five-year term (2010-2015) and urges other environmental organization representatives to consider self-nominating for service on the board.] The issues relating to clear standards for mushrooms and pet food have been before the NOSB and in discussion for some time as a part of ongoing efforts to ensure continuous improvement of standards governing the organic sector.

While virtually all in the organic community and industry agree that the USDA proposals are needed and long overdue, Beyond Pesticides points to problems in the proposed rule that need correcting: (i) Re. mushrooms—more closely follow the 2001 recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as well as current biological knowledge and the organic marketplace; and, (ii) Re. pet food—conform to organic livestock standards, but do not allow the synthetic amino acid taurine for which there are natural sources.

>>Tell USDA to ensure that certified organic fungi and pet food are truly organic. 

In the context of upholding organic integrity and growing the market, Beyond Pesticides offers a perspective that it believes strengthens the value of protecting health and environment through a holistic systems approach to food production and processing—applying the principles and practices to all land management. This contrasts with chemical-intensive farming and land management with its reliance on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers that contribute to the current existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises.

Mushrooms

Mushrooms are fungi, a separate biological kingdom from plants and animals. Whereas plants make their own energy through photosynthesis and over 95% of their bodies are comprised of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen gained from carbon dioxide and water (with less than 5% comprised of nutrients gleaned from soil), fungi are comprised entirely of digested substrate. In this sense, fungi are more similar to animals than plants. Obviously, they are a poor fit for the livestock standards, which require outdoor access and attention to animal welfare. But because of their unique biology and heterotrophic nature, they are a poor fit for the crop standards as well. Fungi deserve, and need, their own scope of standards that recognizes their unique biology and fosters consistency in their cultivation and certification.

Additionally, there are already some organic fungal products in the marketplace that are not mushrooms, such as drink powders made from lion’s mane mycelium as well as the fruiting body and mycelium extract dietary supplements. Yeasts produced for direct consumption (such as nutritional yeast) are currently overseen as organic handling but would fit better under a separate fungi scope.

According to the 2021 National Agricultural Statistics Service Organic Survey, commercial organic mushroom production increased from 17 million pounds in the 2010/2011 marketing year to 114 million pounds in the 2022/2023 growing season. In other words, organic mushrooms made up just 2% of total retail market in 2009 and in 2021 rose to 11% of the total market share. This trend is consistent with the 5% increase in total certified organic farms across the United States within the same time period. Not to mention the 13% increase in certified organic commodities in 2021 relative to 2019 numbers, according to the 2021 Organic Survey. Consumers want access to organic food, and to cultivate a robust market tailored regulations must be developed for mushrooms as they defy certain characteristics of other commodities.

Beyond Pesticides makes the following comments: Framing new production standards to include only mushrooms would unnecessarily exclude these products from certification (or leave them without consistent production standards) and make it harder for future innovative products to become certified. Conversely, framing new production standards to include all fungi would not only provide a better fit for current organic fungal products but provide ample room for additional markets to develop.

In 2001, the NOSB recommended that organic mushrooms must be grown on organic substrate. This position is based on the fact that fungi are composed of digested substrate and, as a result, the board said that only mushrooms grown on organic substrate—manure derived from organic sources or untreated wood that is grown without prohibited substances—can validly claim the organic seal.

Pet Food

The pet food rule is an effort to bring pet food production and materials standards in line with organic livestock standards, and adding an allowed synthetic amino acid, taurine, to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Some pet food manufacturers maintain that the amino acid is necessary to fulfil a macronutrient requirement for cats generally and for dogs during specific periods of their lives.

While Beyond Pesticides supports bringing organic pet food production into conformance with livestock standards when incorporating meat into its products, it disagrees with the NOSB recommendation and USDA’s proposal to allow the use of synthetic taurine for all pet food. Beyond Pesticides maintains that the allowance of any synthetic material to be added to pet food must be based on a recommendation from the NOSB that, in accordance with the OPFA, specifies the species that will be consuming the food. While the science is clear that carnivorous pets, especially cats, require taurine, the question is whether there is a natural source. Since natural taurine is already being marketed commercially by a manufacturer, it is difficult to argue that the substance is not available in its natural form. As Nature’s Logic® states on its website:

“Since our foods are made from high levels of animal protein, all Nature’s Logic diets naturally contain sufficient levels of the Omega-3 fatty acids, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). They also exceed AAFCO*’s protein amino acid requirements for arginine, histidine, isoleucine leucine, lysine, methionine-cystine, methionine, phenylalanine-tyrosine, phylalanine, taurine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine.”

Therefore, Beyond Pesticides is urging USDA to reject the recommendation to add taurine to the National List for pet food. Note that synthetic taurine has been petitioned and rejected for allowance in baby formula.

Take Action Today! >> Tell USDA to ensure that organic fungi and pet food are truly organic.

Proposed comment to USDA

USDA’s proposed regulations for organic certification of mushrooms and pet food are needed and long overdue, but there are problems that need correcting: (i) Re. mushrooms—more closely follow the 2001 recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as well as current biological knowledge and the organic marketplace; and, (ii) Re. pet food—conform to organic livestock standards, but do not allow the synthetic amino acid taurine for which there are natural sources.

Mushrooms. Mushrooms are fungi, a separate biological kingdom from plants and animals. Whereas plants make their own energy through photosynthesis and over 95% of their bodies are comprised of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen gained from carbon dioxide and water (with less than 5% comprised of nutrients gleaned from soil), fungi are comprised entirely of digested substrate. In this sense, fungi are more similar to animals than plants. Obviously, they are a poor fit for the livestock standards, which require outdoor access and attention to animal welfare. But because of their unique biology and heterotrophic nature, they are a poor fit for the crop standards. They require their own scope of standards, recognizing their unique biology, which fosters consistency in their cultivation and certification.

There are already organic fungal products in the marketplace that are not mushrooms, but made from mycelium, such as drink powders and dietary supplements. Yeasts produced for direct consumption (such as nutritional yeast) are currently overseen as organic handling, but would fit better under a separate fungi scope. New production standards including only mushrooms would unnecessarily exclude these products from certification (or leave them without consistent production standards) and make it harder for innovative products to become certified. Framing new production standards to include all fungi would not only provide a better fit for current organic fungal products, but provide ample room for additional markets to develop.

In 2001, the NOSB recommended that organic mushrooms must be grown on organic substrate. Since fungi are composed of digested substrate, only mushrooms grown on organic substrate—manure derived from organic sources or untreated wood that is grown without prohibited substances—can validly claim the organic seal.

Please modify the proposed mushroom standard to: 1) give fungi—not mushrooms—a separate scope; 2) cover all fungi forms; and 3) require that certified organic fungi be grown on organic substrate.

Pet Food: The pet food rule attempts to bring pet food production and materials standards in line with organic standards. It also adds an allowed synthetic amino acid, taurine, to the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Some pet food manufacturers maintain that the amino acid is necessary to fulfill a macronutrient requirement for cats and dogs.

I support bringing organic pet food production into conformance with organic standards and incorporating meat into its products. However, I disagree with USDA’s proposal to allow the use of synthetic taurine for all pet food. The allowance of any synthetic material to be added to pet food must be based on a recommendation from the NOSB that, in accordance with the Organic Foods Production Act, specifies the species that will be consuming the food. While the science is clear that carnivorous pets, especially cats, require taurine, the question is whether there is a natural source. Since natural taurine is already being marketed commercially by at least one manufacturer—Nature’s Logic®—it is difficult to argue that the substance is not available in its natural form. The original recommendation to add taurine for pet food was made in 2008, and it should be revisited by the NOSB before adding it into the regulations.

I urge USDA to reject the recommendation to add taurine to the National List for pet food.

Thank you.

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

Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, 7 CFR Part 205 [Doc. No. AMS–NOP–22–0063] RIN 0581–AE13 National Organic Program; Market Development for Mushrooms and Pet Food, Federal Register, March 11, 2024, pp17322-17338.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 8, 2024) In an unexpected turnaround, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced at the end of April a Proposed Interim Decision (PID) to discontinue all but one application of the insecticide acephate. Acephate is an organophosphate pesticide, a well-known neurotoxicant, widely banned globally, including in the European Union. Under the proposal, all uses would end except for the injection of trees that do not produce fruit or nuts. In its proposed action, EPA asks the manufacturer to offer the agency a voluntary settlement, a process that typically compromises the health of the public, workers, and the environment.

Acephate, an organophosphate (OP) pesticide, is approved for use in both agricultural settings, including crops like cotton and soybeans, and nonagricultural applications, such as injections for forestry trees. Acephate affects the nervous system by inhibiting the acetylcholinesterase (AChE) enzyme. Importantly, chronic, low levels of exposure can cause a range of adverse human health outcomes, from cancer to birth defects, reproductive and developmental problems, and learning disabilities.

While the proposed April interim decision, if it comes to pass, is welcomed by advocates, some are concerned that EPA’s proposal does not fully critique the scientific documents and conclusions on risk that it had previously published in August 2023. The earlier proposal was highly controversial because the assessment, and a proposed downgrading of risk and loosening of standards, relied on still controversial testing methods that did not consider laboratory animal testing.

On August 30, 2023, the agency published the following, relying on a revised acephate human health draft risk assessment (HH DRA) which would have allowed ten times more acephate on food than the currently allowed limits:

“Taking the WOE [weight of evidence] evaluation for DNT [developmental neurotoxicity] potential into account, although acephate and methamidophos are known neurotoxicants (i.e., chemicals that disrupt normal activity of the nervous system), there is little to no evidence that acephate or methamidophos are developmental neurotoxicants (i.e., chemicals that impact the normal development of the nervous system during pregnancy or childhood). Therefore, there is no additional risk when exposures of acephate or methamidophos occur to pregnant women or children. Changes in acetylcholinesterase (which causes a neurotoxic effect, not a developmental neurotoxic effect) continues to be the most sensitive and health-protective endpoint for the acephate human health risk assessment. As a result, EPA concluded there is reliable chemical-specific data to support reducing the acephate FQPA [Food Quality Protection Act] factor to 1x [no additional margin of safety for children provided for under FQPA].”

EPA explains the FQPA safety factor as follows: “[T]he Food Quality Protection Act safety factor (FQPA SF) . . . is intended to provide an additional 10X margin of safety to account for any additional risk to pregnant women and children, but which can be reduced or removed if a scientific determination is made that no such additional risk exists.

Then on April 30, 2024, EPA reversed itself with the following announcement:

“Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a revised human health draft risk assessment (HH DRA) and refined drinking water assessment (DWA) for acephate, an organophosphate pesticide (OP) that is registered for both agricultural and non-agricultural uses. The acephate HH DRA includes an assessment of methamidophos, which is also an OP compound that is formed when acephate is metabolized. The revised HH DRA showed significant dietary risks of concern from drinking water for registered uses of acephate, including non-agricultural uses. EPA also identified dietary risks of concern when only the two highest agricultural usage sites (measured by pounds sold), cotton and soybean, are considered.”

Where the agency will end up with these competing analyses remains to be seen; however, it is clear that the methodologies used to reach these decisions raise important scientific questions about the choices affecting the health of children and the general public who are eating acephate residues in their food and water.

Before making a decision, EPA will take comments under a 60-day comment period and presumably sort out the science and exposure patterns. According to the agency, “Acephate is proceeding through EPA’s standard registration review process. The revised HH DRA and DWA released in August 2023 and the PID released today are open for public comment for 60 days. Commenters may propose alternative mitigation for the Agency’s consideration for some or all uses of acephate, and the Agency will respond to these comments in the Interim Decision.”

Compromising the Public’s Health with Industry Negotiations?

Here is where the negotiations with the chemical manufacturer begin. Regulation by negotiation is EPA preferred approach to protecting the public. In its release, the agency explains its modus operandi: “If EPA determines that alternative mitigation options that are voluntarily agreed to by the registrant can address the identified risks to satisfy the standard for continued registration of the pesticide, this could allow EPA to put protections in place faster than the statutorily required process for involuntary cancellation that can take up to five years. Acephate is one of 18 OPs currently in registration review, with many scheduled to have interim decisions between 2024-2026.”

“While we believe that the accepted science supports acephate’s immediate removal from the market to protect developing fetuses and children, if past is prologue, EPA will allow itself to be whipsawed by the negotiation process, rather than enforce the intent and letter of the law,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides. He continued, “We certainly urge that the agency follow the law—not negotiate away the public’s health and not capitulate to industry threats of litigation.”

Advocates and scientists have raised concerns about the underlying scientific approach used by the agency in its August announcement, which remains undisputed in its proposed interim decision last week. EPA’s history of negotiating away public health runs deep. With acephate, it appears that EPA will continue its pattern of negotiating with pesticide manufacturers and industry to elicit voluntary use restrictions, rather than cancel, suspend, or decline to reregister a pesticide without manufacturer concurrence.

While there are many examples of negotiated EPA decisions, the highly neurotoxic, carbamate insecticide aldicarb stands out as an example of this highly criticized EPA process. Behind closed doors in 2010, EPA and the chemical’s manufacturer, Bayer CropScience, announced an agreement on a set of measures to gradually reduce and ultimately ban fully the use of the insecticide in the U.S. This decision arrived on the heels of a revised risk assessment in which EPA found that babies and children under the age of five can ingest levels of the insecticide through food and drinking water at levels that exceed limits that the agency finds safe. As readers will recall, the intermediate ingredient in aldicarb, methyl isocyanate (MIC), caused an explosion in Bhopal, India, killing up to 20,000 people. Then, in December 2023, it was reported that EPA is again considering allowing the use of aldicarb in Florida citrus, nearly 14 years after the agency and the chemical’s manufacturer announced that it was being banned (technically voluntarily canceled). Please see more on this and Beyond Pesticides’ related Action here.

Acephate Use

Progressive Farmer reported on April 30, 2024, “In an assessment…by the EPA Biological & Economic Analysis Division… the insecticide [acephate] is used on soybeans almost exclusively in the Midsouth states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. It is a minor component of insect pest management programs nationally, being applied to less than 2% of acres, but acephate is applied to 19% of soybeans within the Midsouth [states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas].” 

A Brookings article by Nathan Donley, PhD and Environmental Health Science Director for the Center for Biological Diversity in September 2022 notes that over 4,370,000 pounds of acephate are used annually in the U.S., while banned or being phased out in the European Union, Brazil, and India. Dr. Donley notes that the U.S. is unable to implement rational regulation of pesticides, as other parts of the world continue to eliminate agricultural use of many of the most toxic pesticides. For example, in 2019 the U.S. used 322 million pounds of 70 agricultural pesticides that are banned in the European Union. Similarly, the U.S. uses 40 million pounds of pesticides banned or phased out in Brazil.

New Methodology Tests (NAMs)

EPA’s review of acephate (and the insecticide malathion) is notable as it marks two initial instances where the agency has proposed adjusting its legal safety limits primarily based on non-animal tests to assess the chemical’s effects on brain development through reevaluation of the Food Quality Protection Act safety factor. However, in announcing the PID last month, EPA identified risks to workers, homeowners, and ecosystems from currently approved uses of acephate in drinking water as justification for ending acephate use, except as a tree injection.

Regarding the August 30 risk calculations conducted by EPA, the agency developed new tests, known as “new approach methodologies” or NAMs, with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which presented its initial recommendations in 2023. Those findings stressed the need for additional information and follow-up studies as the nervous system is “arguably the most complicated organ in the body” and “involves integration of intracellular, intercellular, interregional, and system interactions.”  (page 45).

The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) mandate EPA to promote the adoption of scientifically valid testing methods and strategies that minimize or eliminate the need for testing on vertebrate animals. Developing “new approach methodologies” (NAMs) is intended to aid in establishing exposure limits, health advisories, and cleanup policies for harmful chemicals found in various environments and consumer products. However, the effectiveness of these cell-based methods hinges on their ability to provide scientific data of equivalent or superior quality and relevance compared to traditional animal testing methods. Despite their potential, the majority of NAMs have not undergone thorough validation for assessing critical health effects, apart from a few acute toxicity measurements. Consequently, advocates argue these ‘new approach methodologies’ have yet to fulfill the TSCA criteria for replacing or reducing reliance on animal studies in regulatory decision-making.

EPA’s own scientific advisory panels have found this methodology inadequate, specifically for properly assessing the cumulative impacts of pesticides on human health and development. The Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, a body of external researchers and community leaders who advise EPA, recommended that EPA limit the use of data from this methodology and use it only in conjunction with other data. In addition, California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation said the tests were inadequate to support “health-protective decisions” and urged EPA to continue developing this methodology before using it to replace traditional animal studies. Lastly, OECD warned against using the tests to conclude a chemical does not interfere with the brain’s development.

Acephate and malathion are two of the 18 organophosphates currently under review by EPA, with expected interim decisions in 2024-2026. Scientific agreement has long held that children are especially vulnerable to the dangers posed by pesticides, leading the EPA to implement stricter regulations. However, the agency is currently suggesting the elimination of these additional protections for acephate and malathion, based on results from ‘new approach methodologies’ (NAM) tests.

Acephate is in the same chemical class as the well-known neurotoxic chlorpyrifos. These insecticides inhibit proper nerve functioning, leading to paralysis and death in exposed insects; a large enough dose will cause similarly acute effects in humans. Importantly, chronic, low levels of exposure can cause a range of adverse human health outcomes, from cancer to birth defects, and reproductive and developmental problems. Researchers often look at exposures in the womb or at a young age because these are considered ‘critical windows of vulnerability’ during which even small amounts of a pesticide can create long-term damage.

Chemicals like acephate, with the capacity to disrupt the endocrine (hormonal) system by mimicking hormones in the body, are particularly pernicious. In the case of endocrine disruptors, science shows that lower amounts can result in worse health impacts than exposure to higher amounts, a phenomenon known as ‘non-monotonic dose response.’ The scientific literature on these chemicals has upended traditional toxicology, which goes by the oft-repeated phrase, ‘the dose makes the poison.’ Endocrine disruptors reveal this mode of thinking to be outdated, and dangerous to ignore.

EPA Flawed Approach to Cumulative Impact Risk Assessment

The use of such tests is in direct opposition to several executive orders by President Biden requiring EPA to develop policies and actions to assess the cumulative impacts of chemical exposures. Last year, the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report concluding that EPA “took a siloed approach” to the cumulative impacts of chemical exposures and the disproportionate nature of those exposures. This approach keeps different parts of the EPA from coordinating their efforts and hinders understanding of the breadth and depth of chemical exposures.

Pesticides are almost always mixtures of “active” and “inert” ingredients. As Beyond Pesticides reported previously, a 2021 study by Robert Sprinkle, MD, PhD, and Devon Payne-Sturges, DrPH, in Environmental Health, took a comprehensive look at EPA’s practices regarding mixtures. The authors write that in the original 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, mixtures were excluded from the agency’s definition of a “chemical substance.” What this means in practice is that “[a]n environmental mixture could not be, in TSCA terms, a ‘mixture’ if its components include chemical substances altered in the environment. Nor could the still toxic breakdown products of two different industrial substances constitute a mixture.” There is an exception: if EPA finds that if a mixture’s effects could not be predicted by each constituent’s effects, laboratory testing would be required. This means that the agency could view each component of a mixture as “acting in isolation both from nature and from each other.”

What Will EPA Do to restrict acephate?

As Beyond Pesticides and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) wrote in a 2021 critique, EPA is an agency so captured by industry that it has lost sight of its health and environmental mission. EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has registered more than 18,000 separate pesticide products—far more than any other country—and approximately 2 billion pounds (including wood preservatives) of pesticides are sold annually in the U.S. They are used annually over roughly 250 million acres of farmland, across millions of acres of urban and suburban lands, and inside millions of homes, schools, and other buildings. Yet, the letter recounts a litany of improper pesticide approval decisions. The cumulative effects of decades of this regulatory abuse are untold human deaths, disabilities, and illnesses. Mr. Feldman said, “We call on the Biden Administration to be a hero for health—the fastest thing it can do is immediately revoke the worst pesticides,” pointing to the 25 specific steps the coalition identifies that OPP can take to avoid or mitigate its mistakes in moving forward, all within its current authority. “Horror stories have piled up for too long and Americans no longer are safe from the very agency charged with protecting them.”

Beyond Pesticides urges a systemic move toward the adoption of proven agricultural methods and systems that do not use acephate, malathion, and other toxic synthetic pesticides: organic and certified organic regenerative agriculture.  Beyond Pesticides and other advocates call for a strategy that eliminates agricultural chemicals and supports organic agriculture. These measures also address other crises, including microbial support for ecosystem health and biodiversity. Industrial farming systems dependent on synthetic fertilizers and other chemical inputs can be replaced with organic systems that do not use toxic chemicals, in which animals and feed sources are fully integrated, and farmworkers’ health is protected.

To stay informed and raise your voice on this and other pesticide regulatory decisions, click here for updates from Beyond Pesticides.

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

Sources:

EPA Proposes to Cancel All but One Use of Pesticide Acephate to Protect Human Health, EPA announcement, April 30, 2024
EPA Proposes Ban on Controversial Pesticide Acephate, ProPublica, May 1, 2024
EPA Proposes Relaxed Limits on Acephate, a Toxic Pesticide, ProPublica, April 24, 2024
EPA Publishes Updated Risk Assessments for Chemical Acephate, EPA announcement, August 30, 2023
Acephate: Second Revised Draft Human Health Risk Assessment (DRA) in Support of Registration Review, EPA website, August 29, 2023
Approach for Evaluating Developmental Neurotoxicity Potential for the Organophosphate Pesticides, EPA website, August 29, 2023
Evaluation of the Developmental Neurotoxicity Potential of Acephate/Methamidophos to Inform the FQPA Safety Factor, EPA website, August 29, 2023

Initial Recommendations on Evaluation of Data from the Developmental Neurotoxicity (DNT) In-Vitro Testing Battery, OECD Environment, Health and Safety Publications Series on Testing & Assessment No. 377, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, November 3, 2023

(Beyond Pesticides, May 7, 2024) The marginal user costs (MUC) of pesticide resistance for chemical-intensive farmers and the pest management industry are significantly affected by pesticide costs, density dependence (growth rate of a pest population impacted by its density), and dominant genetic mutations that cause resistance, according to a novel study published in Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association. Although the authors believe that integrated pest management (IPM) can be fine-tuned based on these findings, many advocates believe that these findings in fact underscore the importance of eliminating toxic pesticide use amidst compounding climate, biodiversity, and public health crises—which many IPM strategies do not adequately address.

As the costs of petrochemical-based pesticides increase, organisms identified as pests continue to increase in population density as global and regional temperatures dually increase. Organic agriculture, and organic land management principles more broadly, are an economically and ecologically advantageous leap ahead in transitioning to a food system that moves beyond the status quo that poisons people and the planet.

“This paper seeks to develop a better understanding of how the user costs of resistance are potentially determined by the interactions of heterogeneous bioeconomic factors that vary by context,” say the study authors. “We provide the first systematic numerical analysis of model-based user costs of pesticide susceptibility, that is, the price of resistance, and their variation across different bioeconomic contexts.” This study builds on an existing model focused on measuring Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) species of bacteria in European corn borer. In this most recent study’s methodology, the authors expand the existing model through the implementation of stochastic dynamic programming and sensitivity analysis. Stochastic dynamic programming allows for the inclusion of unexpected variables such as weather fluctuations and the opportunity to “examine…user costs not just as calendar-based schedules…but in terms of how these quantities depend on the current state of pest population and resistance.” Meanwhile, authors indicate that sensitivity assessment is important because the findings can be “more broadly relevant for the economics of resistance management in general” rather than in just specific geographies or specific combinations of pesticides and crops.

“We adopt a two-state, discrete-time model of resistance to a single crop and single pesticide, in which resistance is generated from a single gene mutation R relative to the original wild-type gene S that left the pest susceptible to the pesticide,” according to further reporting by the authors on their methodology. “In our model, we define the net MUCs of resistance as the net adjustment factor to the marginal cost of the pesticide that would induce a self-interested farmer ignoring pest population dynamics and evolution to make a decision in the collective interest of farmers as a whole (see detailed rationale for this definition in Supporting Information).” Net MUCs of resistance is an important measurement to consider given the compounding factors (economic, socio-cultural, and philosophical) that impact the adoption of pesticide use by agricultural communities within and outside the United States. IPM claims a pesticide reduction strategy, meaning product substitution rather than the approach of organic land management principles that serves as a transformative alternative to rethink systems in alignment with the health of soil, water, ecosystems, wildlife, and humans.

Pest resistance to pesticides manifests for various pests and pesticides as documented over the years through numerous studies in the scientific literature. For example, a 2023 study published in Pest Management Science finds resistance to insecticides, like pyrethroids, is jeopardizing attempts to control the mosquito Aedes aegypti, the primary vector of dengue fever. Prevention of disease outbreaks is threatened by pesticide reliance to which pathogens and their vectors develop resistance.

A 2022 study published in Scientific Reports documents wholesale toxic pesticide use (deltamethrin, permethrin, lambda-cyhalothrin, propoxur, and malathion) for mosquito control, allowing genetic mutations to persist among mosquito populations and causing subsequent resistance to future exposure. In this study, two common species of female mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciastus) learned to evade pesticides following non-fatal exposure through smell. More concerning is the survival rate of these pre-exposed mosquitoes, as it is more than double that of unexposed mosquitoes. A 2021 study in Journal of Medical Entomology determined black-legged ticks (Ixodes scapulari) in the state of New York are developing potential resistance to the pyrethroid insecticide, permethrin. Regarding the resilience of cockroaches, a 2019 study in Scientific Reports found that many develop cross-resistance to insecticides to which they have never been directly exposed; additionally, pre-treatment application of synthetic pyrethroids revealed an 80% survival rate of these pesky insects. See more on pesticide resistance in the Daily News.

Antibiotic resistance is a compounding implication of relying on toxic chemical inputs in agriculture and broader land management strategies. Agricultural and veterinary uses of antibiotics significantly contribute to the resistance of certain bacteria or fungi to antibiotics that have historically knocked down such infections in humans, as mentioned in a 2017 Pesticides and You article written by Terry Shistar, Ph.D and Carla Curle, “Agricultural Uses of Antibiotics Escalate Bacterial Resistance.“ The authors note, “In addition to the promotion of weed resistance by widespread application of glyphosate and use of glyphosate-resistant genes in agriculture, there is evidence that glyphosate at environmentally relevant levels increases bacterial resistance to antibiotics important in fighting human pathogens and bacterial infections.” There are alternative models being developed in real time. For example, after successful challenges in federal court regarding synthetic antibiotic use for citrus orchards, the conventional citrus industry has been under pressure to find alternative strategies to lure pest insects such as the Asian citrus psyllid (citrus greening) away from trees through an agroecological method called “push-pull” pest management. See more on antibiotic resistance in the Daily News.

Beyond Pesticides collaborates with scientists, advocates, physicians, and local communities to pressure elected officials and regulators to reimagine pesticide regulation through a holistic, systematic approach. Through advocacy with frontline communities, farmers, farmworkers, immunocompromised individuals, and people of color, we enable advocates who believe that organic land management principles are a critical approach to eliminating toxic pesticide exposure to loved ones. See Keeping Organic Strong to see our proposed changes and opportunities to engage in strengthening federal organic standards and policy. See Eating With A Conscience to learn which pesticides are sprayed on conventionally grown fruits and vegetables to better inform your next grocery store run. See Mosquito Management and Insect-Borne Diseases to learn about the ineffectiveness of pesticide spraying and alternatives for ecologically based management strategies. See Action of the Week Archive to see how to stay engaged and get involved in advocacy each week.

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

Source: Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association

(Beyond Pesticides, May 6, 2024) The pattern of failure to protect the public from pesticides is again brought to public attention by an analysis by Consumer Reports (CR) that effectively updates its previous report released in 2020. The report and its earlier iteration identify deep structural weaknesses with the institutions charged with protecting the public’s health and safety. The health risks outlined by CR in 2020 and related to ongoing pesticide exposure, even at low levels, include cardiovascular diseases, cancers, reproductive dysfunction, respiratory problems (e.g., asthma, bronchitis), neurological impacts (e.g., developmental effects and dementia/Alzheimer’s), and endocrine dysfunction, among others. Previously, the magazine reported, “CR’s experts say the government hasn’t upheld its responsibility to protect consumers [and that] the research used to set [pesticide residue] tolerances is imperfect, and they’re often too high.” CR has cited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is primarily responsible for pesticide regulation, for multiple inadequacies.

According to the latest CR analysis, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary has once again failed to accurately portray the safety of some of the most commonly sold fruits and vegetables in the United States. CR reviewed seven years of PDP data, finding that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day. CR’s results are based on Consumer Reports-adjusted reference doses for all pesticides, including those linked to endocrine disruption, as mandated by the Food Quality Protect Act (FQPA) of 1996. As a result, CR is petitioning EPA to cancel the registrations of organophosphate (OP) and carbamate pesticides. 

⬇️ To sign on and support Consumer Report’s petition, please make sure to click the check box at the bottom of the form linked below!

>> Support Consumer Report’s petition and tell EPA / Congress to ban all toxic pesticides when the crop can be produced organically.

EPA’s failure to consider endocrine disruption is only one of many problems with relying on the agency’s tolerances as an indication of acceptable risk of pesticide use. EPA also fails to consider vulnerable population groups, exposure to mixtures, and synergistic interactions in setting allowable food residues. In addition, pesticides contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish, and other wildlife. 

Notably, USDA certified organic food products are not permitted to be produced with the pesticides identified by the report. Pesticide residues found in organic, with rare exception, are a result of the off-target chemical-intensive agriculture pollution through pesticide drift, water contamination, or background soil residues. Not only is the production of organic food better for human health and the environment than chemical-intensive production, but emerging science reveals also what organic advocates have been saying for a long time—in addition to lacking the toxic residues of conventional foods, organic food is more nutritious and it does not poison the people and contaminate the communities where the food is grown. 

A study published by The Organic Center reveals that organic food is higher in certain key areas, such as total antioxidant capacity, total polyphenols, and two key flavonoids, quercetin and kaempferol, all of which are nutritionally beneficial. Another study published in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry looks specifically at the total phenolic content of marionberries, strawberries, and corn, and found that organically grown products contain higher total phenolics. Phenolics are important for plant health (defense against insects and diseases), and human health for their “potent antioxidant activity and wide range of pharmacologic properties, including anticancer, antioxidant, and platelet aggregation inhibition activity.”   

In view of the advantages of organic production, EPA must use organic production as the yardstick when weighing risks and benefits of pesticides. No pesticide should be allowed to be used if the crop can be produced organically. 

>> Support Consumer Report’s petition and tell EPA / Congress to ban all toxic pesticides when the crop can be produced organically.

The targets for this Action are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Congress, with an option to support Consumer Report’s petition.

Letter to the EPA Administrator Michael Regan

According to a new analysis by Consumer Reports (CR), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary has once again failed to accurately portray the safety of some of the most commonly sold fruits and vegetables in the United States. CR reviewed seven years of PDP data, finding that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day. CR’s results are based on including endocrine disruption, as mandated by the Food Quality Protect Act (FQPA) of 1996. As a result, CR is petitioning EPA to cancel the registrations of organophosphate (OP) and carbamate pesticides. I support CR’s petition and request that EPA further evaluate pesticides compared to the organic production of crops.

EPA’s failure to consider endocrine disruption is only one of many problems with relying on the agency’s tolerances as an indication of acceptable risk of pesticide use. EPA also fails to consider vulnerable population groups, exposure to mixtures, and synergistic interactions in setting allowable food residues. In addition, pesticides contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish, and other wildlife.

Notably, USDA certified organic food products are not permitted to be produced with the pesticides identified by the report. Pesticide residues found in organic, with rare exceptions, are a result of the off-target chemical-intensive agriculture pollution through pesticide drift, water contamination, or background soil residues. Not only is the production of organic food better for human health and the environment than chemical-intensive production, but emerging science reveals also what organic advocates have been saying for a long time—in addition to lacking the toxic residues of conventional foods, organic food is more nutritious.

A study published by The Organic Center reveals that organic food is higher in certain key areas, such as total antioxidant capacity, total polyphenols, and two key flavonoids, quercetin and kaempferol, all of which are nutritionally beneficial. Another study published in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry looks specifically at the total phenolic content of marionberries, strawberries, and corn, and found that organically grown products contained higher total phenolics. Phenolics are important for plant health (defense against insects and diseases), and human health for their “potent antioxidant activity and wide range of pharmacologic properties including anticancer, antioxidant, and platelet aggregation inhibition activity.”  

In view of the advantages of organic production, EPA must use organic production as the yardstick when weighing risks and benefits of pesticides. No pesticide should be allowed to be used if the crop can be produced organically.

Thank you.

Letter to the U.S. Congress

According to a new analysis by Consumer Reports (CR), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary has once again failed to accurately portray the safety of some of the most commonly sold fruits and vegetables in the United States. CR reviewed seven years of PDP data, finding that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day. CR’s results are based on including endocrine disruption, as mandated by the Food Quality Protect Act (FQPA) of 1996. As a result, CR is petitioning EPA to cancel the registrations of organophosphate (OP) and carbamate pesticides. I support CR’s petition and request that EPA further evaluate pesticides compared to the organic production of crops.

EPA’s failure to consider endocrine disruption is only one of many problems with relying on the agency’s tolerances as an indication of acceptable risk of pesticide use. EPA also fails to consider vulnerable population groups, exposure to mixtures, and synergistic interactions in setting allowable food residues. In addition, pesticides contaminate our water and air, hurt biodiversity, harm farmworkers, and kill bees, birds, fish, and other wildlife.

Notably, USDA certified organic food products are not permitted to be produced with the pesticides identified by the report. Pesticide residues found in organic, with rare exceptions, are a result of the off-target chemical-intensive agriculture pollution through pesticide drift, water contamination, or background soil residues. Not only is the production of organic food better for human health and the environment than chemical-intensive production, but emerging science reveals also what organic advocates have been saying for a long time—in addition to lacking the toxic residues of conventional foods, organic food is more nutritious.

A study published by The Organic Center reveals that organic food is higher in certain key areas, such as total antioxidant capacity, total polyphenols, and two key flavonoids, quercetin and kaempferol, all of which are nutritionally beneficial. Another study published in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry looks specifically at the total phenolic content of marionberries, strawberries, and corn, and found that organically grown products contained higher total phenolics. Phenolics are important for plant health (defense against insects and diseases), and human health for their “potent antioxidant activity and wide range of pharmacologic properties including anticancer, antioxidant, and platelet aggregation inhibition activity.”  

In view of the advantages of organic production, EPA must use organic production as the yardstick when weighing risks and benefits of pesticides. No pesticide should be allowed to be used if the crop can be produced organically.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, May 3, 2024) Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the second most common neurodegenerative disease in the world after Alzheimer’s. Genetic factors account for only a fraction of PD cases, and for decades scientists have been aware of associations between pesticide exposures and PD. Yet, not everyone exposed to pesticides gets PD. Consequently, neither the genetic nor the environmental hypothesis is fully satisfactory; both may be involved. Thus, there has been great interest in identifying gene variants that affect the risks of PD associated with pesticide exposure.

Now a team of University of California at Los Angeles researchers led by neurologist Brent Fogel, MD, PhD has traced a connection between certain gene variants and the occurrence and severity of PD in a cohort of central California PD patients who have had long-term exposure to pesticides. The genes are related to autophagy, the process by which cells organize, degrade, recycle or eject molecules to maintain healthy chemical balance. Autophagy is an essential process throughout the body, including regulation of mitochondria, which are also vital for healthy cellular function. The study supports other research suggesting that autophagy is disturbed in neurodegenerative diseases.

As Beyond Pesticides discussed in its April 19 Daily News, PD features the accumulation of Lewy bodies in dopaminergic neurons, the nervous system cells most dysfunctional in PD. Lewy bodies are clumps of alpha-synuclein, a protein that, if not removed from neurons when no longer useful, may impede their signaling. This can lead to motor, sleep, behavioral, and other disorders. Lewy bodies are just the kind of problem autophagy should correct, so malfunctioning autophagy could contribute to PD progression.

In the current study, the researchers started with the Parkinson’s Environment and Genes (PEG) data from 757 PD patients who have been followed for decades. The participants in PEG are from California’s Central Valley. Sixty-two percent of the PEG cohort are male; the average age at diagnosis is 67.7 years. PEG includes the details of the patients’ disease onset, progression and severity, as well as their residential and work locations throughout their lives. The patients have also been screened for genetic mutations in genes known to be associated with PD.

The researchers combined the PEG data with land use data and the California Pesticide Use Report (PUR) system, which requires commercial agricultural pesticide users to report the details of pesticide applications, including date, method, location, poundage, type of crop and acreage.

This enabled the researchers to identify a subset of PD patients with known long-term pesticide exposures. They further refined their patient pool to select a group that had been exposed to the “cotton cluster” of pesticides. The cotton cluster includes organoarsenic pesticides, organophosphorus pesticides, and n-methyl carbamates, all of which have “strong epidemiologic association with Parkinson’s disease,” according to the researchers.

The authors single out cacodylic acid, a pesticide in the cotton cluster. This pesticide is an example of the EPA’s regulatory negligence. It is an arsenic compound. Arsenic, an element, is never good for living organisms, but is very common in the Earth’s crust. Cacodylic acid was first used as a pesticide in 1867 in a compound called Paris green, which was also used as a pigment in wallpaper and clothing, resulting in thousands of illnesses and deaths. Its carcinogenicity was suspected as early as 1887. Under the name “Agent Blue,” cacodylic acid was a principal means of killing rice during the Vietnam War—part of the “rainbow” of chemicals, along with Agent Orange, that defoliated much of Vietnam and led to generations of health problems in military veterans.

Despite a long historical record of arsenic compounds’ toxicity, most research has focused on its carcinogenicity rather than its neurological effects. Usage in agriculture has decreased, but EPA declined in its 2006 reregistration review to evaluate one of the still-used arsenic compounds for carcinogenicity. In 2009 EPA canceled registrations for organic arsenical herbicides but continued registration for monosodium methanearsonate (MSMA) on cotton, sod farms, golf courses and highway verges.

Progress has been made against other arsenic compounds. In 2015, after a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and eight other organizations, FDA removed the last of three arsenic drugs from the market; the first two had been voluntarily removed by manufacturers in 2013. The three drugs had been used on chickens, turkeys and pigs to induce “faster weight gain” and create a “healthy color in meat from chickens and turkeys,” according to the CFS. Chromated arsenical manufacturers phased out those chemicals’ use as wood preservatives in 2003, but EPA still allows them to be used on certain wooden parts of buildings.

However, these improvements do not solve the problem with arsenic. Arsenic compounds do not sequester quickly in the environment (as an element, arsenic never breaks down). They are common in air; about two-thirds of atmospheric arsenic derives from human sources such as burning fossil fuels, ore smelting, and pesticides. Thus the legacy of arsenic pesticides is like that of lead, DDT and PCBs—it keeps giving generation after generation.

Arsenic promotes the aggregation of proteins such as alpha-synuclein into Lewy bodies in PD patients’ neurons. In a healthy cell, autophagy would remove Lewy bodies by engulfing them in lysosomes, where they would be taken apart and ejected from the cell. Because lysosomes are crucial to the process, genes known to be important for lysosomal function are of particular interest. If autophagy is inhibited and lysosomes are faulty, PD and other neurodegenerative diseases may progress.

For the current study, the researchers selected 85 genes associated with PD risk in the cotton cluster-exposed group. Of these, they focused on lysosomal genes because they knew such genes are overrepresented in the neurons of patients exposed to the cotton cluster pesticides and might be a locus of disease.

The researchers found that, in fact, nearly three quarters of the PD-associated gene variants in the cotton cluster-exposed PD patients were involved in lysosomal processes, including autophagy, and were not functioning properly. They interpreted this to mean that people carrying these gene variants have an “underlying susceptibility” to exposure to pesticides which, in turn, raises their risk of developing PD. Their neurons would not be able to properly clear Lewy bodies.

The authors also expressed concern about the other pesticides in the cotton cluster. Some are already linked to mitochondrial dysfunction and the proliferation of reactive oxygen species, which itself may trigger autophagy. For example, in laboratory studies the herbicide trifluralin interfered with mitochondria in neurons descended from those in PD patients, and its toxicity is enhanced when applied with other pesticides. Prometryn, a persistent herbicide harmful to fish, and phorate, an insecticide, damage mitochondria and have been associated with PD risk.

Organophosphorus compounds are associated with many health effects ranging from cancer to asthma and diabetes; both organophosphates and n-methyl carbamates are severe neurological toxins, interrupting the acetylcholinesterase signaling pathways in the nervous systems of everything from insects to humans. But they may have a more direct influence on PD induction: a 2024 Alzheimer’s study found that TDCIPP, an organophosphorus flame retardant, disrupts the proper formation of lysosomes.

Because some research shows that the organophosphorus pesticides chlorpyrifos and malathion, as well as the bipyridylium herbicide paraquat, affect lysosomes, the UCLA researchers also recommend further analysis of gene variants’ relationship with exposure to these pesticides.

One of the UCLA study’s coauthors, Kimberly Paul, PhD notes in a press release that Parkinson’s disease is the fastest-growing neurodegenerative disease in the world. Considering this growing prevalence, and the emerging evidence that pesticides are major contributors to it, regulation of the pesticides considered in the current study should be dramatically increased. In fact, elimination of pesticides would reduce the risk of not only neurodegenerative diseases but a wide range of modern human afflictions. The cost of managing chronic and degenerative diseases that are preventable, or at least mitigable, by transition to organic agriculture will certainly exceed the costs of growing food, livestock, and plant and animal materials without pesticides. Beyond Pesticides notes, “There is no conceivable economic rationale that outweighs the burdens suffered by exposed populations—a group that includes everyone.”

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

Sources:

Lysosomal genes contribute to Parkinson’s disease near agriculture with high intensity pesticide use
Ngo, K.J., Paul, K.C., Wong, D. et al. Lysosomal genes contribute to Parkinson’s disease near agriculture with high intensity pesticide use.
npj Parkinsons Dis. 10, 87 (2024).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-024-00703-4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41531-024-00703-4
[open access]

U.S. EPA. HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS DOCUMENT FOR CACODYLIC ACID. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/8-90/021 (NTIS PB91216473).
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NCEA&dirEntryId=37605

Arsenic Exposure and Toxicology: A Historical Perspective
Michael F. Hughes, Barbara D. Beck, Yu Chen, Ari S. Lewis, and David J. Thomas
Toxicol Sci. 2011 Oct; 123(2): 305–332.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179678/#bib222|
[open access]

A review on arsenic in the environment: contamination, mobility, sources, and exposure
Khageshwar Singh Patel, Piyush Kant Pandey, Pablo Martín-Ramos, Warren T. Corns, Simge Varol, Prosun Bhattacharya, and Yanbei Zhu
RSC Adv. 2023 Mar 14; 13(13): 8803–8821.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10020839/
[open access]

Convergent pathways in Parkinson’s disease
Cherubini M, Wade-Martins R. Convergent pathways in Parkinson’s disease.
Cell Tissue Res. 2018 Jul;373(1):79-90.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6015598/
[open access]

(Beyond Pesticides, May 2, 2024) In the midst of a climate crisis and a lack of government recording of atmospheric measurements of sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2), a study of the estimated emissions of sulfuryl fluoride throughout the U.S. shows elevated levels being released in California. The study, performed by researchers from Johns Hopkins University’s Department of Environmental Health and Engineering, University of California’s Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Global Monitoring Laboratory, uses measurements from the NOAA Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network and a geostatistical inverse model. Sulfuryl fluoride is a fluoride compound and pesticide used primarily for the extermination of drywood termites and beetles—linked to increased greenhouse gas emissions and having acute exposure consequences—with little data collected or reported on the amount of sulfuryl fluoride being used and released into the atmosphere. There is a long history of limited protections for the public centered around sulfuryl fluoride, with regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not addressing both dietary and nondietary exposure to fluoride compounds and the body burden this creates. With the dismissal of aggregate risk exposure, public health and safety and environmental sustainability are not prioritized. Organic alternatives have been left out of the conversation, but advocates are urging a shift in that direction. 

The measurements utilized in the study are from across North America between 2015-2019 and were also compared to global emission rates, as has been done in previous studies related to this compound. The findings of this study show “California has the largest SO2F2 emissions among all U.S. states, with the highest emissions from southern coastal California,” conclusions consistent with prior analysis of the data. The study goes on to say that there were “zero to low emissions across most of the rest of the U.S,” which signifies California as an outlier.  

In comparison to overall emissions, the authors found that “California emits 60-85% of U.S. SO2F2 emissions … equal to 5.5-12% of global SO2F2 emissions”. While analyzing this data, it was also found that when large spikes of emissions occurred, 98% of them were at sites in California. Total emission rates from California were found to be 0.26 Gg/year while the entire U.S. is 0.30 Gg/year, an alarming amount that calls for emissions in California to be regulated. Usage of sulfuryl fluoride in warmer states is expected since many of the targeted pests do not threaten areas with a colder climate. California, however, stands apart from other warm coastal regions that have low emissions. As a greenhouse gas (GHG), this is a concern since sulfuryl fluoride has a long atmospheric lifetime, high global warming potential, and strong infrared absorption properties. 

After the Montreal Protocol was finalized in 1987, a shift away from methyl bromide, which is known as an ozone depleting substance, occurred and the ozone layer started to show signs of recovery. This shift, however, led to an alternative being used in its place–which is when global use of sulfuryl fluoride significantly increased. Both compounds, however, are still used under critical use exemptions from the Clean Air Act despite pushback. The 2014 Farm Bill also contains language that allows for EPA to disregard safety thresholds for fluoride compounds. In addition to structural fumigation, EPA began allowing sulfuryl fluoride in the production of raw foods in 2004 and processed foods in 2005. Multiple points of exposure to these compounds occur through drinking water, food, and in the air, which begs the question of why total exposure, including the effects of climate change, is not considered when accessing potent pesticides such as sulfuryl fluoride. When calculating aggregate risk under the Food Quality Protection Act, EPA is required to consider exposure to fluoride used for water treatment when evaluating the hazards of sulfuryl fluoride. 

In 2008, a study determined that this pesticide was also a GHG after calculating its global warming potential. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change officially recognized this and characterized sulfuryl fluoride as a GHG in 2013, and yet to date its atmospheric measurements are not recorded in the U.S., there is not a national inventory of its use, and EPA does not include it in any reporting programs. With global emissions of sulfuryl fluoride reaching a historic high, requirements for reporting and reducing these levels are needed, according to advocates. 

The initial research on sulfuryl fluoride that led to it being approved in 1959 did not show that it was long-lasting in the atmosphere, nor did it show a high global warming potential. Since then, additional studies have shed light on sulfuryl fluoride as a GHG with detrimental effects. A study in 2009 found that this pesticide is as much as 4,000 times more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Despite this, legislation such as from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or EPA have failed to include this potent pesticide. 

Moreover, this study highlights other important consequences of sulfuryl fluoride use: “Apart from the climate-warming effect, there are public health and safety concerns surrounding the use of SO2F2 for fumigation. Most notably, there have been several documented cases of inadvertent human deaths caused by acute exposure.” Additional health effects include cancer, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity, and impacts on reproduction and development. The authors also state that EPA considers sulfuryl fluoride as a “restricted-use pesticide (RUP) due to its inhalation toxicity” and yet does not require any reporting or regulate its usage. 

In researching California’s utilization of sulfuryl fluoride, records from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation were reviewed. These records “indicate that ~85% of SO2F2 use (by mass) in California is for structural fumigation, while ~15% is for agricultural and commodity fumigation.” As a GHG, portions of sulfuryl fluoride that escape into the atmosphere after fumigation remain in the atmosphere for decades, contributing to the climate crisis. The authors of this study also reviewed aerial imagery over the Los Angeles Basin that shows plumes of sulfuryl fluoride emissions from fumigation sites within residential neighborhoods, a concerning fact since “aeration of fumigated structures has been demonstrated to occur rapidly, with over 90% of indoor SO2F2 lost to the atmosphere within the first 2 hours of ventilation.” California heavily relies on sulfuryl fluoride to combat the western drywood termite, which is difficult to eradicate since they establish colonies without having contact with the soil, do not forage for their food, and tend to make aerial colonies that are inaccessible. In addition, the fumigation of structures with sulfuryl fluoride helps to target current infestations but does not prevent further ones. This causes the need for reoccurring treatments and increased emissions. 

California is the only state that currently keeps a public record of statewide application, even though this is not a requirement of EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program or the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. “The lack of inventory data on SO2F2 use complicates attempts to constrain U.S.-wide emissions,” this study states, which brings to light the inadequacies of EPA’s requirements around GHG. The authors go on to state that “under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), but SO2F2 has not been included in the list of HAPs to date”. Despite multiple studies and petitions, the inaction of EPA and other agencies is apparent. 

While many states have made goals around reducing GHG emissions, such as California has, this study raises a concern over the discrepancies affecting these goals: “California’s SO2F2 emissions provide a case study on how greenhouse gas emissions that are unaccounted for in emissions inventories can potentially offset progress made towards emissions reductions”. The authors of this study call for action in stating: “The pervasive threat of termite infestations in warm-climate regions highlights the need for the development and practice of sustainable, entomology-guided techniques for controlling urban pest populations without the release of harmful atmospheric pollutants or climate-warming gases,” which aligns with Beyond Pesticides’ mission. Alternatives are available, and advocates are urging for these non-toxic options to be used in the place of potent pesticides. Non-chemical and mechanical controls, biological controls, and least-toxic chemicals have all been effective against drywood termites and can be used in place of sulfuryl fluoride. 

For alternatives to other pests, Beyond Pesticides offers ManageSafe™ where you can search by pest type and see different options. There are also resources regarding products compatible with organic landscape management to help make a change and incorporate safer practices in homes and communities.  

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

Source: 

Gaeta, D.C. et al. (2024) California dominates U.S. emissions of the pesticide and potent greenhouse gas sulfuryl fluoride, Communications Earth & Environment. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01294-x  

(Beyond Pesticides, May 1, 2024) According to a new analysis by Consumer Reports, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Summary has once again failed to accurately portray the safety of some of the most commonly sold fruits and vegetables in the United States. A review of seven years of PDP data show that 20% of the foods tested pose a “high risk” to the public and 12 specific commodities are so dangerous that children or pregnant people should not eat more than one serving per day, according to Consumer Reports analysis. Consumer Reports contend that U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA) pesticide residue tolerances are too lenient. To better evaluate potential health risks associated with various foods, Consumer Reports applied stricter residue limits than the EPA tolerances (see here for CR’s analytical methodology). Notably, USDA certified organic food products are not permitted to be produced with the pesticides identified by the report. Pesticide residues found in organic, with rare exception, are a function of the off-target chemical-intensive agriculture pollution through pesticide drift, water contamination, or background soil residues.

The Consumer Reports results fly in the face of the rosy outlook reported by the USDA in its 2022 PDP Annual Summary, which found that 99% of the fruits and vegetables the agency tested “had residues below the established [EPA] tolerances.” Agencies typically point to acceptable or legal residues as protective of health and the environment, despite potential adverse effects associated with inadequate assessment of health outcomes, such as endocrine disruption, vulnerable population groups, exposure to mixtures and synergistic interactions, and more.

Beyond Pesticides reported in February that EPA’s methodology for calculating acceptable levels of pesticides in food has long been criticized as inadequate. Scientists at Consumer Reports note that EPA’s calculations of “tolerable” levels of pesticides in food are at least 10 times higher than they should be to adequately ensure the health and safety of the public and the country’s ecosystems. According to Consumer Reports, EPA has never applied the tenfold safety factor to certain pesticides required as by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 to protect vulnerable populations. [Readers and the public can reference Beyond Pesticides’ database Eating with a Conscience, which identifies the multiple pesticides that can be used on individual crops and the resulting exposures not only to consumers, but to farmworkers, farmers, neighboring communities, and the environment.]

Michael Hansen, PhD, senior scientist at Consumer Reports, states, “The way the EPA assesses pesticide risk doesn’t reflect cutting-edge science and can’t account for all the ways the chemicals might affect people’s health, especially given that people are often exposed to multiple pesticides at a time.”

To ensure the most up-to-date information, the list of pesticides to which the tenfold safety factor is applied by Consumer Reports is based on the latest scientific findings in the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a database maintained by TEDX, a nonprofit research institute that uses publicly available scientific research to identify chemicals with at least one study demonstrating endocrine-disrupting properties. The tenfold safety factor is also applied by Consumer Reports to the list of endocrine disruptors identified by the European Commission. Consumer Report’s analysis not only applies the tenfold safety factor to appropriate chemicals, but it also calculates the relative risk of each food based on the average amount, frequency, and number of pesticide residues found on each food type, and the relative potential of the pesticide to negatively affect human health. Together, this information was used to develop a ranking system from “Very Low Risk” to “Very High Risk.”

Of the 59 fruits and vegetables included in the analysis, which includes data from 2016-2024, 22 foods are identified as “Moderate Risk” or higher, including seven that were “Very High Risk.” This is based on data analyzed from nearly 30,000 samples taken between 2016-2024. With this methodology, it is advisable that some people limit their food consumption to no more than one-half serving per day for many commonly eaten vegetables, such as bell peppers, blueberries, potatoes, and strawberries.

Watermelon and green beans were identified as some of the highest risk foods. Watermelon carries a small but serious risk of contamination with oxamyl, a highly toxic insecticide. [See Beyond Pesticides’ Gateway on Pesticides here]. Similarly, while only four percent of domestically grown green beans from chemical-intensive agriculture tested positive for the insecticide acephate or one of its breakdown products, the levels found were up to 100 times higher than considered acceptable by Consumer Reports scientists. Perhaps more alarming is the fact that acephate has been illegal for use in green bean cultivation since 2011. (See here for Beyond Pesticides coverage.)

Consumer Report’s analysis highlights the inadequacy of the PDP to adequately convey the potentially serious impacts of continuing to use toxic pesticides in the production of food. Beyond Pesticides has reported on the misleading nature of the PDP annual summary and how certain mainstream organizations, such as Blue Book Services/Produce, cover the annual update by reinforcing USDA’s depiction of pesticide exposure in produce as safe.

USDA’s PDP and EPA’s risk assessment measures fail to account for vulnerable subpopulations, such as farmworkers, people with compromised health or preexisting health conditions, and children (see here and here). Beyond the residues of pesticides in and on food, exposure to pesticides used in crop production results in disproportionate risk and harm to farmworkers, their families (including children who are working as farmworkers), and ‘fence line’ communities living near farms. [See here for coverage of a January 2024 report led by Nathan Donley, PhD, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity and Robert Bullard, PhD, executive director of the Robert D. Bullard Center for Environmental and Climate Justice at Texas Southern University in Houston].

Similarly, the PDP Annual Report also fails to adequately promote the benefits of organically grown produce. Consumer Reports found that nearly all organically grown food tested had low or very low pesticide risk and only spinach and potatoes posed a moderate risk among domestically grown varieties. Beyond Pesticides notes, organic food products have been found to have zero contact with pesticides unless due to pesticide drift from other farming operations.

Consumer Reports first began reviewing PDP data and presenting its own analysis in 2020. Since then, it has recommended that the public eat an organic diet whenever possible and has advocated for change in how pesticides are used and regulated. Not only is the production of organic food better for human health and the environment than chemical-intensive production, but emerging science reveals also what organic advocates have been saying for a long time—in addition to lacking the toxic residues of conventional foods, organic food is more nutritious.

A study published by The Organic Center reveals that organic food is higher in certain key areas, such as total antioxidant capacity, total polyphenols, and two key flavonoids, quercetin and kaempferol, all of which are nutritionally significant (read a summary in the Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog). Another study published in the Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry looked specifically at the total phenolic content of marionberries, strawberries, and corn, and found that organically grown products contained higher total phenolics. Phenolics are important for plant health (defense against insects and diseases), and human health for their “potent antioxidant activity and wide range of pharmacologic properties including anticancer, antioxidant, and platelet aggregation inhibition activity.”  For more on the health benefits of organic agriculture, see here.   

Organic agricultural practices, which reject the use of harmful pesticides, are capable of the benefits the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial is demonstrating. Not only does organic food remove the risk of ingesting toxic chemicals, it eliminates the risk posed to farmworkers and the environment. Such practices protect human and animal health, and support functional ecosystems and biodiversity. Widespread adoption of organic and certified organic regenerative agriculture can also lift human agro-activity out of its current chemical dead-end. The public has an important role to play in this transition: learn more about organic agriculture, advocate for it, and “vote” for organics by creating market demand for organic food.

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

Sources:

Produce Without Pesticides, Consumer Reports, April 18, 2024
6 Fruits and Vegetables Loaded With Pesticides, Consumer Reports, April 18, 2024
Consumer Reports recently conducted its most comprehensive review of pesticides in 59 US fruits and vegetables, The Guardian, April 18, 2024
Healthy or high risk? New analysis warns of pesticide residues on some fruits and veggies, New Lede, April 18, 2024
Agricultural Justice, Beyond Pesticides website
Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management, Beyond Pesticides website

(Beyond Pesticides, April 30, 2024) Researchers found epigenetic changes, including changes relating to “DNA methylation, histone modification, and differential microRNA expression [which ‘can alter the expression of many disease-related genes’],” in a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature published in Environmental Epigenetics. “Our review did provide evidence that pesticide exposure could lead to epigenetic modifications, possibly altering global and gene-specific methylation levels, epigenome-wide methylation, and micro-RNA differential expression,” researchers share in the conclusion of the study.

This study is an amalgamation of various studies on epigenetic changes based on a literature review process: “Article review involved [3,529 articles found through] extensive searches across major human health databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, and BVS (Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde – the Latin American Health Database). Searches covered articles published through December 2020. Considering the diverse terminologies used to describe the same epigenetic mechanism in this field, the search strategy aimed to encompass all relevant articles by combining a variety of search terms in titles and abstracts. This approach was implemented across PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases to ensure comprehensive coverage.” Studies were not included if the participants were not considered “healthy individuals” or if the participants had “known inherent/congenital or acquired genetic disorder[s].” Out of 3,529 articles initially found, 28 articles were finalized after going through eligibility criteria. 

“When a modification occurs in a gene’s promoter region, it impedes the binding of activating transcription factors and triggers the formation of a closed chromatin structure through specific histone modifications,” the researchers explain in describing the relationship between pesticide exposure and biomolecular alterations that impact an individual’s epigenetics. “Assessing sperm samples from military veterans of Operation Ranch Hand exposed to Agent Orange, Kelsey et al. (2019) associated loss of DNA methylation in four different CpG sites of the TEAD3 gene with dioxin exposure,” says researchers in the study. DNA methylation is essential to the development and transfer of genes. “In addition, by assessing regional DNA methylation changes, 36 gene regions, including the region of the imprinted gene H19 were found to have altered DNA methylation associated with high dioxin exposure compared to the low dioxin exposure group.”

One of the selected studies involves the tracking of micro-RNA (miRNA) profiles from urine of farmworkers exposed to organophosphate pesticides. “A cohort of mother-child farmworker pairs exposed to organophosphate pesticides and non-farmworker pairs was studied by measuring urinary microRNA profiles []. Significant differences in miRNA profiles were found between adult farmworkers and non-farmworkers and also between seasons. During the post-harvest season, six miRNAs were identified as being positively associated with farmworkers.”

Epigenetic changes through pesticide exposure have been documented by various scientific studies focusing on different adverse health effects. For example, a 2023 study published in Endocrine notes that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (including primary ingredients in herbicides such as glyphosate and organophosphate and carbamate insecticides) can bind to hormone receptors, dysregulating hormone receptor expression, disrupting the production and metabolism of the steroid hormone (steroidogenesis), and altering the epigenetic (heritable traits) mechanisms. The resulting reproductive outcomes from endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) exposure include poor semen quality, increased sperm DNA fragmentation, increased gonadotropin levels, a slightly increased risk of hereditary malformations (e.g., cryptorchidism and hypospadias), and testicular tumor development. Regarding prenatal exposure, maternal exposure to EDCs increases the predisposition for testicular tumor development, as well.

Additionally, a 2023 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives observed life-long exposure to glyphosate increases the risk of mosaic loss of chromosome Y (loss of chromosome Y occurs to many men in some cells due to aging [mLOY]) that impacts a noticeable contingent of cells. Although the loss of this sex chromosome does not cause cell death, like the loss of autosomal chromosomes, the risk of mLOY is a biomarker for genotoxicity (the damage of genetic information within a cell causing mutations from chemical exposure, which may lead to cancer) and expansion of cellular response to glyphosate, resulting in the precursor for hematological (blood) cancers. For a broader history of independent and peer-reviewed scientific literature in this field of study, see the Daily News Blog section on epigenetics.

Beyond Pesticides has discussed extensively the impact of pesticide exposure on human health, particularly in its relationship with epigenetics and environmental obesogens. Environmental obesogens are chemicals that are proven to have a health impact on metabolic systems relating to obesity. As a keynote speaker at Beyond Pesticides’ 36th National Pesticide Forum, “Organic Neighborhoods: For healthy children, families, and ecology,” Bruce Blumberg, PhD broke down the impacts of prenatal obesogens in the session Cutting Edge Science. “In the obesogen-exposed animals, this structure is disturbed, and that leads to heritable changes in which genes are expressed. This altered structure is inherited, and that leads us to get this leptin-resistant thrifty phenotype four generations later, as published in [a 2017 Nature Communications study which determined] ancestral perinatal obesogen exposure results in a transgenerational thrifty phenotype in mice.”

There are several aspects of obesogens that scientists are still determining, including the number of obesogens and the degree to which prenatal exposure alters adult phenotype from babies as they grow up from ancestors who have intergenerational interactions with obesogens. There is also a 2024 Chemosphere study that describes associations between type 2 diabetes, obesity, and pesticide exposure, specifically β-Hexachlorocyclohexane (β-BHC) and oxadiazon.

Long-term pesticide exposure, and exposure to a mixture of various chemicals, has impacts on a far range of health consequences not just to human health, but to ecosystem integrity in its entirety. Beyond Pesticides acknowledges the decades of advocacy toward organic principles not only for agricultural purposes, but for broader land management strategies to prevent the unnecessary spread of toxic petrochemical pesticides. See Eating With A Conscience to learn about the toxic pesticides commonly used in conventionally grown fruits and produce to make a more informed decision ahead of your next grocery store run. See Keeping Organic Strong to learn how to strengthen National Organic Program standards in service of public health, climate action, and consumer interests.

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

Source: Environmental Epigenetics

(Beyond Pesticides, April 29, 2024) The contamination and poisoning left behind from wood treatment sites, resulting in hundreds of designated Superfund clean-up sites across the country, is the subject of an action by Beyond Pesticides after the release of yet another report criticizing the federal government’s inadequate response to the public’s risk to “residual contamination in the groundwater and soil” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG). The report criticizes EPA’s weak response at the American Creosote Works Superfund site in Pensacola, FL, a problem that reflects the unending dangers of sites contaminated with persistent toxic chemicals associated with wood preservatives. The site was put on the Superfund priority list in 1983 and in 2017 it was estimated that the clean-up would cost $35.3 million. Just last year, EPA Administrator Michael Regan toured another Superfund Site contaminated with creosote and pledged the clean-up of that site, which affects a community of predominantly people of color.

Tell EPA to cancel the registration of highly toxic wood preservatives, including creosote, chromated arsenicals, and copper compounds, and the U.S. Congress to ensure the prevention of future site contaminations.

As long as dependency on toxic wood preservatives (used on utility poles and railroad ties) continues—pentachlorophenol (penta), copper chromated arsenate, and creosote—the contamination at treatment and disposal sites will continue, advocates say. Beyond Pesticides found the following as far back as the late 1990’s: Wood preservative treatment facilities have contributed greatly to the ranks of Superfund cleanup sites. On the National Priority List (NPL) of sites identified by EPA: (i) Arsenic has been found in at least 781 NPL sites; (ii) Penta had been found at least 314 NPL sites; (iii) Chromium has been found in at least 386 hazardous waste sites on the NPL; (iv) Copper has been found at least 210 NPL sites; and (v) Creosote has been found at least 38 of NPL sites. Based on data from the EPA’s Superfund Enterprise Management System, there are 63 current and proposed Superfund sites based on former facilities in “Lumber and wood products/wood preserving/treatment” with creosote and pentachlorophenol that fall on the National Priorities list as of 2024.

Federal action falling short on toxic chemicals in wood products has been a longstanding problem. Beyond Pesticides released a report in 1997 on the lasting effects of toxic chemicals in traditional utility poles, “Poison Poles – A Report About Their Toxic Trail and Safer Alternatives.” The problem of public exposure to creosote and toxic chemicals in wood goes beyond Superfund sites. “Using a pole distribution formula…there are well over 116 million mini-waste sites in backyards, school yards, along rivers and lakes, and up and down roadsides across the country. Out of the over 3,000 electric utilities in the U.S., over one-half of these toxic poles are put in place by the 100 largest utilities. That translates to more than one toxic pole per household.” 

After nearly a century of use, the EPA announced in 2022 that it was officially cancelling the highly toxic wood preservative pentachlorophenol (penta). As one of the most dangerous pesticides ever produced, penta poses unacceptable risks to workers and surrounding communities, which often became superfund sites once manufacturing plants closed. According to the agency, “During the registration review process, EPA found that given the emergence of viable alternatives, the risks pentachlorophenol poses to workers’ health outweigh the benefits of its use.” Health and environmental advocates are pleased with the agency’s long overdue action on penta but remain incredulous that EPA has provided a generous phase-out for the utility and wood preservative industry, allowing use to continue for up to five years. Beyond Pesticides has been working to ban pentachlorophenol, creosote, and copper chromated arsenate since its founding in 1981. (See history of Beyond Pesticides’ work and litigation.) The agency said it was requiring registrants to voluntarily cancel their penta products by February 29, 2024. EPA will then provide another three years for registrants to utilize their left-over stocks of penta, placing a hard end date on February 29, 2027. In a response to Beyond Pesticides comments, the agency does indicate it will require mandatory cancellation should current registrants not follow through voluntarily. See more details. EPA did not act on penta until the market collapsed due to the closing of the last penta manufacturing facility in Mexico in compliance with the 2001 Stockholm Convention, under which parties to the treaty agreed to phased out Persistent Organic Pollutants. The U.S. never ratified the treaty to which 186 nations are signatories.

Advocates say that the ending of continued contamination requires the phasing out of these wood preservatives and replacing them with alternatives, including less toxic materials, cement, fiberglass, and, in the case of utility poles, burying lines.

Tell EPA to cancel the registration of highly toxic wood preservatives, including creosote, chromated arsenicals, and copper compounds, and the U.S. Congress to ensure the prevention of future site contaminations.

Engineering solutions, such as removing soil, sludge, and sediment and installing a temporary cap over the contaminated materials, have reduced risk from contamination by pentachlorophenol (penta), dioxins, creosote, and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. However, protecting human health and the environment requires ongoing institutional controls—administrative and legal measures, such as zoning, public advisories about contamination at a site, and restrictions on permitted uses of private property. OIG finds, “The institutional controls that the EPA has established at the American Creosote Works, Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site in Pensacola, Florida, related to contaminated groundwater and soil are not sufficient to prevent potential exposure to contamination.”

Superfund, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted in response to growing public awareness of the dangers of hazardous waste sites, such as Love Canal. CERCLA created the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (or “Superfund”) to collect taxes, cost recoveries, and fines and penalties to be used to finance emergency responses and cleanups. Ultimately, the costs should be reimbursed by responsible parties, if they can be located. Cleanup is expensive, but necessary. However, cleanup needs to be coupled with actions to prevent future contaminated sites.

It is no surprise that many Superfund sites are past or current sites of wood preservation. Since wood is a potential food source for organisms ranging from bacteria and fungi to insects and birds, and treated wood is expected to survive for years or decades when exposed to the elements, the ideal wood preservative chemical is broadly toxic and persistent. EPA must make connections between decisions that promote environmental contamination and programs that must clean up the toxic mess. Administrator Regan’s visit to Houston, Texas to tour a petroleum facility owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company followed a lawsuit filed by thousands of surrounding community members for adverse health effects allegedly caused by creosote contamination. Yet, Mr. Regan failed to see the connection between lived experiences of frontline communities impacted by creosote wood preservatives since the EPA moved forward with its decision to reauthorize creosote use for another 15 years.

Furthermore, alternatives exist—such as concrete or steel utility poles. If EPA is to prevent future sites contaminated with toxic wood preservatives, it must cease the use of these highly toxic persistent chemicals.

Tell EPA to cancel the registration of highly toxic wood preservatives, including creosote, chromated arsenicals, and copper compounds, and the U.S. Congress to ensure the prevention of future site contaminations.

Letter to EPA:

A recent report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Environmental Protection Agency found that due to inadequate institutional controls at the American Creosote Works Superfund site in Pensacola, FL, “the public remains at risk of exposure to residual contamination in the groundwater and soil,” pointing to the unending dangers of sites contaminated with persistent toxic chemicals. 

Engineering solutions, such as removing soil, sludge, and sediment and installing a temporary cap over the contaminated materials, have reduced the risk of contamination by dioxins, creosote, and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. However, protecting human health and the environment requires ongoing institutional controls—administrative and legal measures, such as zoning, public advisories about contamination at a site, and restrictions on permitted uses of private property. OIG finds, “The institutional controls that the EPA has established at the American Creosote Works, Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site in Pensacola, Florida, related to contaminated groundwater and soil are not sufficient to prevent potential exposure to contamination.”

Superfund, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted in response to growing public awareness of the dangers of hazardous waste sites, such as Love Canal. CERCLA created the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (or “Superfund”) to collect taxes, cost recoveries, and fines and penalties to be used to finance emergency responses and cleanups. Ultimately, the costs should be reimbursed by responsible parties, if they can be located. Cleanup is expensive but necessary. However, cleanup needs to be coupled with actions to prevent future contaminated sites.

It is no surprise that many Superfund sites are past or current sites of wood preservation. Since wood is a potential food source for organisms ranging from bacteria and fungi to insects and birds, and treated wood is expected to survive for years or decades when exposed to the elements, the ideal wood preservative chemical is broadly toxic and persistent. EPA must make connections between decisions that promote environmental contamination and programs that must clean up the toxic mess. For example, in 2021, EPA Administrator Michael Regan visited Houston, Texas to tour a petroleum facility owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company as thousands of surrounding community members sued the corporation for adverse health effects allegedly caused by creosote contamination. Yet, Administrator Regan failed to see the connection between the lived experiences of frontline communities impacted by creosote wood preservatives since the EPA moved forward with its decision to reauthorize creosote use for another 15 years.

Furthermore, alternatives exist, such as concrete or steel utility poles. I urge EPA to prevent future sites contaminated with toxic wood preservatives by ceasing the use of these highly toxic persistent chemicals, including creosote, chromated arsenicals, and copper compounds.

Thank you.

Letter to U.S. Representative and Senators

A recent report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Environmental Protection Agency found that due to inadequate institutional controls at the American Creosote Works Superfund site in Pensacola, FL, “the public remains at risk of exposure to residual contamination in the groundwater and soil” points to the unending dangers of sites contaminated with persistent toxic chemicals. 

Engineering solutions, such as removing soil, sludge, and sediment and installing a temporary cap over the contaminated materials, have reduced the risk of contamination by dioxins, creosote, and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. However, protecting human health and the environment requires ongoing institutional controls—administrative and legal measures, such as zoning, public advisories about contamination at a site, and restrictions on permitted uses of private property. OIG finds, “The institutional controls that the EPA has established at the American Creosote Works Inc. (Pensacola Plant) Superfund site in Pensacola, Florida, related to contaminated groundwater and soil are not sufficient to prevent potential exposure to contamination.”

Superfund, or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted in response to growing public awareness of the dangers of hazardous waste sites, such as Love Canal. CERCLA created the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund (or “Superfund”) to collect taxes, cost recoveries, and fines and penalties to be used to finance emergency responses and cleanups. Ultimately, the costs should be reimbursed by responsible parties, if they can be located. Cleanup is expensive, but necessary. However, cleanup needs to be coupled with actions to prevent future contaminated sites.

It is no surprise that many Superfund sites are past or current sites of wood preservation. Since wood is a potential food source for organisms ranging from bacteria and fungi to insects and birds, and treated wood is expected to survive for years or decades when exposed to the elements, the ideal wood preservative chemical is broadly toxic and persistent. EPA must make connections between decisions that promote environmental contamination and programs that must clean up the toxic mess. For example, in 2021, EPA Administrator Michael Regan visited Houston, Texas to tour a petroleum facility owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company as thousands of surrounding community members sued the corporation for adverse health effects allegedly caused by creosote contamination. Yet, Administrator Regan failed to see the connection between the lived experiences of frontline communities impacted by creosote wood preservatives since EPA moved forward with its decision to reauthorize creosote use for another 15 years.

Furthermore, alternatives exist—such as concrete or steel utility poles. I urge you to ensure that EPA prevents future sites contaminated with toxic wood preservatives by ceasing the use of these highly toxic persistent chemicals, including creosote, chromated arsenicals, and copper compounds.

Thank you.

(Beyond Pesticides, April 26, 2024) Researchers build on existing research when assessing the relationship between long-term exposure to organophosphorus pesticides—widely used in food production and homes and gardens—and the human gut microbiome. In a new study published in Environmental Health, an interdisciplinary research team from University of California, Los Angeles determined, “that exposure to [organophosphorus pesticides] is associated with changes in the abundance of several bacterial groups and differential functional capacity in metabolic pathways supported by the human gut microbiome.”

The study draws upon data from a “Parkinson’s, Environment and Gene study (PEG)” in which 190 participants were asked to submit fecal samples and answer interview questions. “[The study] was initially designed to investigate the etiology of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and participants were recruited in two study waves [‘over the full 10-year exposure window’]: 2001–2007 and 2012–2017. At baseline, [Parkinson’s disease] patients were diagnosed within the past 5 years and randomly selected community controls were also recruited,” the research team shares in their Methodology section. “Since 2017, we invited previous study participants who could be contacted to enroll in a pilot study of the gut microbiome. In addition, we invited a household or community member of [Parkinson’s] patients to participate.” To be eligible for the study, it was determined that the participants did not have the following:

1. “acute/chronic gastrointestinal conditions; or 
2. an immunocompromised state and/or were taking immunosuppressants;
3. antibiotic intake continuously or within the past three months”

The collection kit for the research was based on protocol developed under the Microbiome Core of the Goodman-Luskin Microbiome Center. The microbiome was assessed through bacterial DNA found in the fecal samples. A software, PICRUST₂ was used to identify 16S RNA markers—“metagenomic profile of the gut microbiome”—to make predictions on relationships between pesticides and its genetic impacts. For the pesticide exposure assessment component, researchers use a geographic information system (GIS) method with data from California Pesticide Use Reports, land-use survey data from California’s Public Land Survey system, and residential use data from the participants. Researchers found “most abundance changes at the genus level associated with high ambient [organophosphorus pesticide] exposure belong to Lachnospiraceae (seven genera were increased and two were decreased) and Ruminococcaceae (3 genera were increased and 2 were decreased) families in the Clostridia class.” This is significant given these two families are related to anaerobic bacteria present in individuals with healthy gut microbiomes as they produce short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) “critical in maintaining the homeostasis of the gut microbiome including gut barrier integrity, immunomodulation and regulation of the metabolism of lipids, cholesterol, and glucose []. The production of SCFAs is determined by the type of dietary fibers, the fermenting bacteria, the gut environment, and the substrate []. Therefore, it is possible that the observed changes in SCFA-producing bacteria are an indicator of disturbed homeostasis of the gut environment due to chronic [organophosphorus pesticide] exposure, and the body’s response to such changes.”

This study builds on existing scientific evidence analyzing the impact of toxic pesticides on human health pertaining specifically to the gut microbiome. For example, in a 2023 study released in ISME Journal, researchers determined that the gut and the brain are deeply integrated through the vagus nerve and the neuroendocrine system. The vagus nerve is a treelike bundle of fibers extending from the lower part of the brain to nearly every body organ, but particularly the heart, lungs and digestive tract. The neuroendocrine system comprises specialized cells inhabiting nearly all the organs of the body that respond to signals from the brain and gut to produce hormones that regulate digestive enzymes, the pace of digestion, air and blood flow in the lungs, blood pressure, heart rate, blood glucose levels, and other functions.

Moreover, Demetrio Sierra-Mercado, MD shared findings from research originally published in 2022 in the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, aimed at documenting the relationship between glyphosate exposure and gut health. Dr. Sierra-Mercado noted how even exposure levels that fall within the realm of “safe” can lead to anxiety-like behaviors and alter the delicate balance of gut microbiota. Pesticide exposure has been linked to other adverse health impacts on the gut, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). A 2023 study published in Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology determined that populations living near intensive agricultural operations face higher levels of toxic pesticide exposure (i.e. chlorpyrifos, N-methyl carbamates, macrocyclic lactones, neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, [di] thiocarbamates, conazoles, dicarboximide, anilino-pyrimidines, copper salts, bipyridyl (paraquat, diquat), organophosphates (glyphosate), chlorotriazine, and phenylurea) simultaneously faced higher rates of IBS compared to populations living in areas of low pesticide use and exposure.

Microbiome health for pollinators is also impacted, as documented in a 2022 study published in Science of the Total Environment. Bees subjected to sulfoxaflor and azoxystrobin in combination experienced significantly reduced survival when compared to a sole sulfoxaflor exposure, underscoring the importance of studying chemical mixtures in holistically assessing health-based consequences of pesticide exposure. Bees were exposed to field relevant levels of each pesticide per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, as well as combinations of pesticides for a period of 10 days through sugar water. A separate experiment on the honeybee gut microbiome was constructed using newly emerged bees, which were housed and reared separately, and then exposed to a similar pesticide treatment as the initial experiment. See Beyond Pesticides’ Daily News blog sections on microbiota and microbiome for further documentation of scientific literature and health impacts.

The continuous growth and adoption of organic agricultural and land management practices is a hopeful sign of systems change away from the chemical treadmill and dependence on petrochemical-based toxic pesticides. Yet advocates are weary of piecemeal bans when the foundation of inaction stems from a failed regulatory system that permits the use of toxic pesticides. See Tools for Change to discover resources and strategies to organize your community against toxic pesticide use. See Eating With A Conscience to learn more about potential pesticide exposure on commonly consumed fruits and vegetables. For the latest scientific literature on adverse health impacts of herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides, see Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management and Pesticide-Induced Disease Database.

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

Source: Environmental Health

(Beyond Pesticides, April 25, 2024) In a study from earlier this year, “Pesticides: An alarming detrimental to health and environment,” scientists compiled research from 154 articles regarding pesticide use and the adverse effects they have on the environment and human health. Among the effects of the harmful pesticides described is genotoxicity—the alteration of genetic material that results in the mutations in DNA that cause cancer. 

The authors state that “genotoxins are mutagenic chemicals, and exposure to them increases the risk of developing tumors, hormonal changes, DNA damage, and changes in the ovaries and eggs, all of which leading to cancers… The risk of DNA damage surges with increased genotoxicity in people exposed to pesticides.” In addition, the National Institute of Health states that all “pesticides are highly biologically active chemicals. They may interact with DNA and damage its structure.” Despite these documented risks, pesticide use continues to surge. 

While phased out to a considerable extent after being widely used in agriculture and residential areas, organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) or its breakdown compound dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) continue to show up as residues in the environment and food supply. Symptoms in humans that have been exposed to these chemicals include: seizures, vomiting, anemia, rapid heart rate, and muscular pain. OCPs have also been linked to changes in the following: hematological/hepatic (blood and bone marrow), endocrine (hormones), and reproductive body systems. Most OCPs are categorized as carcinogens and are linked to genotoxicological properties. 

Organophosphates (OPs), another class of pesticides that were “touted as an eco-friendly alternative” to OCPs, have a wide body of research on their negative health effects. Glyphosate, a phosphonate within the OP family which acts by inhibiting the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSP), is most widely used. According to this study, OPs have “been linked to health issues related to endocrine and nervous systems, cellular oxidative stress, effects on the functioning of important enzymes such as cholinesterase, reduced secretion of insulin, dysregulation of cellular metabolism of proteins, carbohydrates, and fats, and increased genotoxic effects. Population-based research has suggested links between exposure to organophosphates and major health issues, such as dementia, cardiovascular illnesses, adverse effects on the reproductive system in males including the nervous system, and an elevated risk for non-lymphoma Hodgkin. Additionally, prenatal exposure to organophosphorus pesticides is related to shorter gestational times and children developing neurological issues.” Many studies have been performed to show these correlations. 

The greatest risk for pesticides lies in those who apply them. The authors of this study state: “Workers and farmers, are frequently exposed to relatively higher levels of pesticides, occupational exposure to pesticides is giving rise to more hazards. For an instance, it has been noted that farmers exhibit greater immunotoxicity of pesticides during the pesticide spraying season.” Other elevated risks for farmers’ body and mind have also been studied. 

Pesticide use dates back thousands of years, even as far as 4500 years ago when sulfur was used to control insects and mites. Starting in the 1500s, mercury and arsenic were utilized against insects, bacteria, and fungi until it was discovered in the 1940s that these metallic elements were toxic, affecting human health and staying in the soil for decades. The 19th and 20th centuries brought the invention and application of many new pesticides that were thought to be safer and more effective, only to be proven to have lethal effects and be banned. Notably, in 1962 Rachel Carson wrote “Silent Spring” to shed light on DDT and the damage it caused for over 20 years on not only bird species, but humans and the environment as well. 

Since then, pesticides on the market continue to be studied and are found to have adverse effects that include resistance. “Due to the increased quantity and frequency of pesticide applications, the targeted pests evolved and adapted to the newer environments and harsh conditions which led to an increase in the prevalence of the resurgence of pests and the appearance of pesticide-resistant species,” the authors of the study affirm. This resistance creates a vicious cycle for the introduction of additional chemicals to combat unwanted species. 

Research is ongoing into current pesticides in use, their impacts on DNA, and the link to those, especially farmers, who develop cancer after exposure. As more pesticides are being proven to have severely detrimental effects on not only our environment’s water, soil, and air but also on human health and the health of critical species (such as pollinators), higher standards needs to be set for the approval of such chemicals. Extensive testing on all pesticides and potential synergistic effects they have need to be performed, and transparency from the Environmental Protection Agency needs to be in place to close loopholes that allow for lethal chemicals to be utilized.   

Safer alternatives are currently available for the pesticides that are widely used today. Natural pesticides, also known as biopesticides, are considered “more efficient, less expensive, and ecologically sound,” based on this study. Since biopesticides are derived from natural materials, they are overall less toxic and have fewer unintended effects. As Beyond Pesticides states on their National Organic Standards page, “Under the organic regulations, only naturally derived pesticides and a small number of synthetic ingredients of low toxicity, such as boric acid, may be used. Inert ingredients in these products must be approved for organic production.” The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has recommended to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) a process for a thorough review of all inert ingredients used in products allowed for organic production to ensure compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act. The standards in place for organic farming call for the full elimination of pesticides with harmful or even unknown effects with the adoption of a soil-based systems approach to land management that enhances biodiversity and prevents disease and infestation in plants. 

While pesticides target weeds, insects, or diseases that affect crop production and nonagricultural land management (e.g., parks and playing fields), these same chemicals damage the environment and many species, as the study indicates. Advocates say that these effects call for not only a reduction in the use of harmful chemicals, but the disuse of them with safer, organic alternatives in their place. 

Act today by writing a letter to legislators about your local community and the impact of pesticides on pollinators that are needed for our food production, as well as the need to switch to organic methods of pest management and help protect children from pesticides by telling the EPA to ban carcinogenic pesticides here. Beyond Pesticides’ mission is for the phase out of toxic petrochemical pesticides by 2032, which can be achieved through local and national change.  

An organic agricultural approach supports biodiversity, soil health, improved water quality, sustainable practices, energy efficiency, and higher food quality, in addition to preventing exposure to toxic or lethal chemicals. A world-wide shift towards organic standards for food production is a necessity to ensure the survival of all species and the environment. Stay up to date on the Daily News for studies on current pesticides and the safer alternatives to them that exist. The Gateway on Pesticide Hazards and Safe Pest Management allows for additional research on pesticides, and The Safer Choice provides resources for the public to make healthier, more informed choices.  

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

Source:  

Kaur, Rajwinder et al. “Pesticides: An alarming detrimental to health and environment.” The Science of the total environment vol. 915 (2024): 170113. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170113 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38232846/